Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Scottish Bank Notes

Commander Donaldson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what instructions have been given to his officers in England as to the acceptance of Scottish bank notes for the payment of the purchase of savings certificates, postal orders, stamps, etc.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): Instructions are to accept them.

Commander Donaldson: While thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him if he will consider the encouragement of a more general acceptance of

Scottish bank notes by placing in post offices a notice saying, "Scottish bank notes accepted here"?

Mr. Gammans: They have never been refused. My hon. and gallant Friend is asking me to do something which is really unnecessary.

Mr. G. Jeger: Are they accepted at their full value of 20s. or at a discount?

Mr. Gammans: They are accepted at their full value.

Sub-Postmasters

Mr. Remnant: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many sub-postmasters are now drawing remuneration below the level of £250 per annum.

Mr. Gammans: Approximately 9,000.

Mr. Remnant: In view of the large number of sub-postmasters concerned, will my hon. Friend consider obtaining for those who are in outlying districts some additional work, such as the issue of driving licences and possibly even motor-car licences?

Mr. Gammans: That raises an entirely different matter, which has no connection with the original Question. I would point out to my hon. Friend that the remuneration from the Post Office is not supposed to be the sub-postmasters' sole means of livelihood.

Mr. Remnant: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many vacancies there are for sub-postmasters.

Mr. Gammans: Two hundred and sixty-seven on 31st January, 1953.

Mr. Remnant: In view of the rather rapid turnover of these gentlemen, does not my hon. Friend consider that some of the difficulty in filling these appointments is due to the continual upgrading of sub-post offices to Crown offices, and will he consider granting these people term appointments?

Mr. Gammans: The turnover of the gentlemen, as my hon. Friend puts it, and of ladies, too, is not as rapid as all that. The number of vacancies unfilled at the moment is less than 1 per cent. of the total.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it not true to say that in any case conversion would not apply to people in this grade of £250 per annum?

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of sub-postmasters in Scotland; how many of these are drawing less than £250 per annum in remuneration; and how many are drawing £250 a year or more

Mr. Gammans: Two thousand three hundred and seventy, of whom 1,300 are drawing £250 a year or more and the remainder less than that figure.

Sick Rate

Mr. Osborne: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the sick rate amongst Post Office employees in terms of days' absence per person for the years 1952 and 1951; and how this compares with the pre-war figure.

Mr. Gammans: The average number of days sick absence per person for non-disabled established staff was as follows: In 1938, 8.1 days for men and 9.3 for women; in 1951, 15.0 days for men and 18.4 for women. The corresponding figures for 1952 are not yet available.

Mr. Osborne: Does my hon. Friend know the reason for this alarming increase in sickness absence; are people paid while absent, and can he give any idea of what the saving in manpower would be if the absence rate were the same as before the war?

Mr. Gammans: This is a very alarming increase and the Government and the

Post Office under successive Administrations have been disturbed about it. With regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I estimate that if the figures were the same as before the war there would be a saving in staff of at least 6,500 people.

Mr. Nicholson: Is it not a fact that there has been a change in Post Office regulations and practice in connection with the notification of illness?

Mr. Gammans: Before the war the Post Office had their own doctors, whereas now the staff comes under the National Health Service.

Mr. Osborne: Are wages paid during sickness, and has anything been done to check this?

Mr. Gammans: The ordinary sickness regulations governing Government employment, of course, apply. With regard to the second point, this matter is under very careful consideration, not only by the Government, but also in co-operation with the trade unions, whose help and advice have been sought in this matter and are being very readily given.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Can the hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made with those consultations which I set in motion when I was at the Department? It is a serious problem and the unions undertook a general examination in each region. Could the hon. Gentleman say what has happened?

Mr. Gammans: I am afraid I am not in a position to make a definite statement to the right hon. Gentleman.

Cats (Maintenance Allowances)

Captain Orr: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the allowance payable for the maintenance of cats in his Department was last raised; what is the total amount involved; what is the present rate per cat in Northern Ireland; and how this compares with the rate in London.

Mr. Gammans: There is, I am afraid, a certain amount of industrial chaos in the Post Office cat world. Allowances vary in different places, possibly according to the alleged efficiency of the animals and other factors. It has proved impossible to organise any scheme for


payment by results or output bonus. These servants of the State are, however, frequently unreliable, capricious in their duties and liable to prolonged absenteeism.
My hon. and gallant Friend has been misinformed regarding the differences between rates for cats in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom. There are no Post Office cats in Northern Ireland. Except for the cats at Post Office Headquarters who got the special allowance a few years ago, presumably for prestige reasons, there has been a general wage freeze since July, 1918, but there have been no complaints!

Captain Orr: How does my hon. Friend account for the fact that no allowances are payable for cats in Northern Ireland? Is it because the post offices there are more sanitary, and will he say what happens if a cat has kittens? Is there a family allowance payment?

Mr. Gammans: There are no cats in Northern Ireland, I presume, because there are no mice in post office buildings. With regard to the children's allowances, I am afraid there is none. But the head postmasters have full discretion to give a maternity grant.

Mr. Rankin: Can the Minister tell us whether his Department provide an adequate maternity service.

Mr. Gammans: Very adequate.

Miss Ward: Can my hon. Friend say whether this is one of the occasions on which equal pay prevails?

Mr. Gammans: Equal pay has been accepted both in principle and in practice.

Captain Orr: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise this matter again.

Flimwell (Postal Address)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General on what grounds the Post Office changed the address of Flimwell, Kent, from Flimwell, Goudhurst, Kent, to Flimwell, Wadhurst, Sussex; whether he is aware that since this change there have been delays in the delivery of post to the residents of Flimwell; and whether in view of the petition signed by the majority of the residents there protesting against the change, which has been

forwarded to him, he will restore Flim-well's original, long-standing and geographically correct address.

Mr. Gammans: The postal address of Flimwell has been changed from Kent to Sussex because the greater part of the village itself lies in Sussex and only a small part in Kent. I was not aware that this change had led to any delay in delivery, but I am looking at the matter again in the light of the petition which my hon. Friend has sent on to me, and I will write to him as soon as possible.

Mr. Deedes: Is my hon. Friend aware that he undertook to look into this about two months ago, that nothing has happened, and that the mail delays have continued? Is he further aware that many of these residents, as a result of this decision, are now being asked to change their administrative centre for such purposes as Income Tax, and so on, from Kent to Sussex, and that this really involves a great many people in a very great deal of inconvenience? Will he look into the matter really urgently?

Mr. Gammans: I promise to let my hon. Friend have a report on this matter in the very near future.

Storm Damage, Scotland

Mr. Grimond: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how far the damage done in Northern Scotland by the recent gale has been repaired; if he will give some estimate of what cost and work this has involved; and how far the provision of new telephone facilities will be delayed.

Mr. Gammans: Temporary repairs were completed by 28th February and most of the work of permanent repair should be completed by the end of May. The estimated cost of restoration work in Northern Scotland is about £135,000, including the equivalent of 220 men's time for six months. The cost for Scotland as a whole is £170,000. Assistance from other parts of the country was provided on a considerable scale, but even with this, the repair of the storm damage will put back the planned programme of development by four or five months. While precise figures cannot yet be given, a substantial reduction, probably amounting


to some thousands, will be unavoidable in the number of non-priority applications that can be met this year.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that people in the North of Scotland are very grateful to his Department and its workmen for the work they did, and will he do his best to see that the future programme, which will inevitably be held up—we appreciate that—will be held up as little as possible through lack of materials?

Mr. Gammans: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said about the Post Office staff, and I know that they will appreciate it. I shall certainly do my best to reduce as far as possible the devastating effects on the Post office programme of the damage done by the storm.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Would the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of paying a compliment to the staff, who made very special efforts to remedy all these defects, both in England and Scotland?

Mr. Gammans: I thought I had stressed that when I was answering the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). If I have not done so, I will willingly do so now. What struck me so much about this disaster was that in England and also in Scotland the Post Office staff did not have to be sent for— they turned up.

Stamps (Design)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why he will not consider issuing a series of stamps portraying eminent British personalities, in view of the types of stamps issued by other Commonwealth Governments and the British Colonies.

Mr. Gammans: British postage stamps have always portrayed the head of the Sovereign, and to do otherwise would break a tradition which was established when this country first issued postage stamps in 1840.

Mr. Sorensen: Is that any reason why we should not depart from tradition at times and supplement the very desirable printing of the monarch's head by the portrayal of other prominent personalities?

Mr. Gammans: This has always been our tradition. We have a small type of stamp, incidentally, which would not lend itself to more than one head on it. There is no demand, in my opinion, for any change, and if eminent people are to be commemorated I think they can be commemorated in some way other than on postage stamps.

Mr. Rankin: Could the Minister tell us why he has dropped the numeral "II" in the new issue of postage stamps but is not dropping it on his pillar boxes?

Mr. Gammans: There has been no dropping of the numeral "II" on postage stamps or anywhere else.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Has the Minister not seen his new stamp which does not contain the numeral?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Sir H. Williams: Would my hon. Friend consider the possibility of advising Mr. Speaker to have a weekly ballot to see which hon. Member is to appear on the postage stamp for the following week so that everybody can be satisfied?

Scottish Timber

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will now make a statement as to the extent to which his Department are availing themselves of timber blown down in the recent gales for the purpose of stockpiling.

Mr. Gammans: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) on 11th March. Offers have been invited for poles of sizes and types required by the Post Office, but it will be some time before we know how many suitable poles are likely to be available.

Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it from that reply that my hon. Friend will do his best to use this home-grown timber wherever possible rather than spend currency on buying foreign poles?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, I fully give that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Nuclear Power

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to apply nuclear power to the production and projection of television pictures through Britain.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. are not aware that it is possible to apply nuclear power to television, but I shall be glad to put to them any proposal which the hon. and learned Member may have.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister not aware that this matter has already been discussed in scientific papers? Will he take steps to secure the scientific distribution of television instead of wasting his time making invidious distinctions against the North of Scotland and Cornwall?

Mr. Gammans: I am not quite sure what Cornwall has to do with this Question, but the B.B.C. have never heard of the application of nuclear energy to television. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has any proposals to make in the matter, I shall be delighted to pass them on.

Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give us due warning when these experiments are going to take place?

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend tell us what is likely to happen when television pictures are "projected through Britain"?

Booster Station, Brighton

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to make a statement giving details of the additional television facilities which he has recently provided for Brighton and Hove, beyond that which Brighton and Hove heretofore enjoyed; what other places have been given such additional facilities; and in what circumstances such additional facilities are granted.

Mr. Gammans: The booster station which the B.B.C. propose to erect in the neighbourhood of Brighton will pick up television signals direct from Alexandra Palace, amplify them and then rebroad-cast on low power. The purpose of the booster station is to give a reasonable service to some thousands of people at Brighton, Hove and Worthing, who have

already invested in television sets but can make little effective use of them at present owing to the screening effect of the South Downs. No other booster stations have been authorised.

Mr. Hughes: Is the principle upon which the Minister acts in this matter the ancient one of "To him that hath to him shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have"?

Licences

Sir L. Ropner: asked the Assistant-Postmaster-General whether he will consider introducing legislation to prohibit the sale of wireless sets unless a licence-is produced.

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend has already carefully considered this idea, but he is reluctant to introduce this drastic change, involving as it would a system of control and restriction of dealers, unless he can be satisfied that it would be more effective and not cost more than the present system.

Commercial Programmes

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what representations he has received from the British Broadcasting Corporation on the losses they expect to sustain in regard to the services of key television technicians, artistes and other performers if, and when, sponsored television is permitted.

Mr. Gammans: None, Sir.

Mr. Fletcher: Is not the Minister aware that the mere possibility of commercial television is already making it very difficult for the B.B.C, and will he confirm the assurances given by the Government that there will be no commercial television in this country until the conditions already announced are fulfilled?

Mr. Gammans: If it is making it difficult for the B.B.C, they have not said so. One of the virtues of the new policy is that it will give a chance of alternative employment to artistes and technicians. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman should wish to restrict that chance, and I am sure that as a member of the legal profession he would have a very genuine sense of grievance if he had only one client.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would be deeply resented if it were proposed that a ring fence should be put round the B.B.C. or any other State monopoly in order to stop employees going to other jobs where they might get better pay?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a little bit of special pleading for commercial television? May I take it that his failure to answer the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary does not indicate that there is any change at all in Government policy?

Mr. Gammans: There is no change whatsoever in Government policy. Of course it is special pleading for com-mercial television; this Government happens to believe in it.

Captain Orr: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what indication he has given to the Television Advisory Committee as to the date by which he wishes them to report; and when he expects to be in a position to inform the trade about the wavelengths to be made available for commercial television.

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend asked the Television Advisory Committee to give first priority to the question of what wavelengths could be allotted for commercial television. I understand that the Committee has made substantial progress and will shortly be drafting its report on this problem.

Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in order to hasten the provision of brighter and better and more popular television programmes, it is essential that the trade should get this information about wavelengths as soon as possible, and will he urge upon the Television Advisory Committee the greatest haste?

Mr. Gammans: The Television Advisory Committee has made very fast progress, and, as I have said in my answer, it hopes to be drafting its report in the very near future.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of what has been said, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what are the complaints and the grave objections of the Government to the television programmes, which most of us find quite good?

Mr. Gammans: I was not aware that the Government had made any complaint about the B.B.C.'s programmes.

Mr. Morrison: If the Government have no complaint about the B.B.C. television programmes, why are they playing about with this commercialisation that will bring crime and vulgarity on to the television screens?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the Report of the Television Advisory Committee will be made available to Members?

Mr. Gammans: I cannot say.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Does he expect it to be made available to us?

Mr. Gammans: I hope so, yes. It is now being drafted, and I hope it will be published before long.

Mr. Morrison: The capital interests over there!

Mr. Nally: In view of the fact that the Assistant Postmaster-General's answer shows that no decision has yet been reached on this matter, would he be good enough to consult his colleagues and the Treasury and point out the extent to which large sums of money are being expended by private interests which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are allowing for taxation purposes that ought not to be incurred at all, in view of the fact that the Government have reached no decision on these matters?

Mr. Gammans: What the hon. Gentleman has just said has not the slightest relation to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the Government's policy towards political broadcasting on commercial television stations.

Mr. Gammans: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 9 of Command Paper 8550.

Mr. Mayhew: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement in the White Paper that political broadcasting will not be permitted with his statement last week that licences are being considered for newspapers of all political opinions? How can any programme financed by Lord Beaverbrook or by Mr. Pollitt be non-political?

Mr. Gammans: A newspaper does not necessarily contain only politics. If it did, people would not buy it.

Captain Orr: Is not this a matter for the controlling authority envisaged in the White Paper; and can my hon. Friend say when this controlling authority is likely to be set up?

Mr. Gammans: The Question asked about the political side of the new stations, and that matter is covered by paragraph 9 of the White Paper. I cannot yet tell my hon. and gallant Friend when the new controlling body will be set up.

Mr. H. Morrison: May we know whether it is the policy of the Government in introducing these capitalist interests into television—and I think that hon. Members who have interests in that quarter ought to announce it every time they get up—to extend the already considerable power of newspaper proprietors into the field of television?

Mr. Gammans: No decision has yet been given as to who shall be given the licences. It will certainly not be restricted merely to newspaper proprietors.

Sir G. Lloyd: Is there any real difference between those who have a vested interest and those who have a capitalist interest?

Mr. Gordon Walker: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how "political" is going to be defined, and by whom? Is it to be defined by the Government or by the controlling board? It is a very difficult thing to do.

Mr. Gammans: That is quite right, and that is one of the things which has to be referred to the controlling body.

Captain Orr: On a point of order. In view of the inference in the supplementary question asked by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) just now, might I point out that I have no interest whatever.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General from how many foreign-controlled commercial interests he has received applications for a sponsored television licence.

Mr. Gammans: No applicant at this stage has been asked to state his nationality, nor has the ownership of companies yet been investigated.

Mr. Mayhew: Why will the Assistant Postmaster-General not state plainly that he will not permit British television stations to be controlled by foreign commercial interests?

Mr. Gammans: This is one of the matters—I keep repeating this, but the hon. Gentleman would see it for himself if he were to read the White Paper once more—upon which the Government propose to seek the advice of the controlling body.

Sir R. Grimston: Will my hon. Friend take note of the bogies being raised, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in particular, and draw from that the conclusion that commercial broadcasting must be introduced as soon as possible in order that these misrepresentations may be caught up, as was the "warmonger" campaign at the last Election?

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We are getting very far from the Question.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. When my right hon. Friend said just now that hon. Members asking Questions should declare their interest, the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) got up, I think quite rightly, and said that he had no interest to declare. Now a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, you gave your Ruling on the declaration on interest at Question time. I have read that but, frankly, I have not quite understood it. As I understand it, in these matters of sponsored television there are hon. Members who have an interest— and when I refer to an interest in sponsored television I mean some financial interest in the capital investment issue in putting on a sponsored television programme. Now, in view of that, is it your Ruling that such hon. Members— who, I think, are almost exclusively on the other side of the House—

Mr. Manuel: All of them.

Mr. Snow: —are under no obligation to declare their interest when they put a Question?

Mr. Speaker: Without agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in his statement of the facts, my Ruling certainly meant that there was no obligation on an hon. Member in putting a Question on the Order Paper to declare his interest.

Mr. Beswick: Did not your Ruling also say that an hon. or right hon. Member having such an interest could not take part in a Division? Do we understand, therefore, that in the event of this matter coming up for discussion again, such hon. or right hon. Members would be expected to declare their interests and would not be allowed to go through the Division Lobbies?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite hypothetical, as there is no Division at the present moment.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is it in accordance with the best traditions of this House that hon. Members opposite, who are undoubtedly interested financially in this commercial racket, should put Questions on it?

Mr. Speaker: I deprecate these charges of personal interest from either side of the House. It would be very easy for both sides of the House to object to each other on Questions on many occasions. I hope that the House will now proceed with the Questions in the ordinary way.

New Transmitter, Redruth

Mr. Hayman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General in which month of this year the British Broadcasting Corporation expects to make available for the radiation of the Home Service the proposed third transmitter at Redruth.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. hope that the new transmitter will be working before next winter, but cannot yet say in which particular month it will start.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister bear in mind and request the B.B.C. to bear in mind that the people of Redruth and district have been waiting patiently for a long time for better facilities for the Home Service, and hope that this new transmitter will be erected early in the summer instead of later in the year?

Mr. Gammans: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will not have to wait very much longer.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Can my hon. Friend say whether this new transmitter will improve the Home Service for those in West Cornwall farther west than Redruth?

Mr. Gammans: I am afraid I should want notice of that.

Very High Frequency

Mr. Hayman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the Government expect to be able to release the British Broadcasting Corporation from the ban on capital expenditure projects which now prevents the Corporation from introducing very high frequency broadcasting.

Mr. Gammans: Before very high frequency sound broadcasting can begin the form of modulation to be used and the best way of developing the service must be decided. The Television Advisory Committee has been asked to consider these questions as soon as possible. When they have been settled, the rate of progress will depend on the amount of the national capital resources which can be allotted to this and other B.B.C. developments.

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the whole of Cornwall has bad reception on the Home Service, and that at Penryn and Falmouth, which are within a few miles of the Redruth transmitter, there is very bad reception on the Light Programme, and that this also applies, so far as the Home Service is concerned, to many parts of the country? Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to persuade the Government to relax the ban on capital expenditure as quickly as possible?

Mr. Gammans: I know that many parts of Cornwall have very unsatisfactory reception, but the extent to which that can be remedied soon must, of course, depend, as I have said in my original answer, on the allotment of capital resources.

Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to expedite the decision of the Television Advisory Committee with regard to the form of modulation, because it is very essential in view of future developments?

Mr. Gammans: I am hoping that the Television Advisory Committee will make a report upon this matter before very long.

Sir H. Roper: Can my hon. Friend give any idea of what amount of capital expenditure is involved in the introduction of V.H.F.?

Mr. Gammans: I should want notice of that.

Sporting Events

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he is taking, or proposes to take, to secure agreement between the professional sports organisations and the British Broadcasting Corporation's television department, so as to secure the maximum possible televising of sports events.

Mr. Gammans: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) on 11th March, 1953.

Mr. Roberts: As the answer to which the hon. Gentleman has referred the House contains absolutely no information whatsoever, may I ask him whether it would not be a wise step for him to reconvene the Sports Television Advisory Committee set up by his predecessor to consider this vital question?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, my noble Friend is considering doing that, but I think that the very large question that the hon. Gentleman has raised goes far outside the functions of the Sports Advisory Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

School, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is no telephone at the Forest Lodge infant and junior school at Charnor Road, Leicester, which has a complement of 1,537 children; that this causes inconvenience in cases of illness, as the nearest telephone box is some distance from the school; and whether he will arrange for a telephone to be installed at the school without further delay.

Mr. Gammans: I am sorry that the schools in this new estate are having

to wait for a telephone. We have been held up for cables, but these are now being laid and I hope that the schools will be connected to the telephone within a few months.

Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the fact that a telephone is particularly needed in this school? A child was taken ill not so long ago; two teachers had to attend the child; the headmistress had to go by car to get the mother, and it was only after that that she was able to telephone. Can he please hurry the matter up as speedily as possible?

Mr. Gammans: I shall hurry it up as quickly as I an, but I would remind the hon. Member that, according to my information, the nearest kiosk is only 300 or 400 yards away.

Goole

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones are outstanding in Goole; what is the date of the oldest outstanding application; how many have been offered connection to a party-line; and how many have refused the offer.

Mr. Gammans: Sixty-seven applications were outstanding at 31st December, 1952, the oldest one being dated the 24th February, 1947. One hundred and thirty-four subscribers share telephone lines on the Goole exchange. Detailed records are not kept, but there is no recollection locally of a single refusal, although a few subscribers have shown hesitation when first asked to share.

Mr. Jeger: When considering the extension of telephone lines in Goole, will the Minister bear in mind that it is the only port in the West Riding, that it is playing a considerable part in our export trade, and that trade telephone subscribers should be encouraged in every possible way?

Mr. Gammans: We hope to have an extension of equipment this year and a further cable extension next year.

West Cornwall

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for new telephone receivers


were unsatisfied in the years 1951, 1952 and 1953, respectively, in West Cornwall.

Mr. Gammans: The numbers are: 1,841, 2,095 and 1,614.

Mr. Howard: Can my hon. Friend give some assurance that he will use his best endeavours to cut down this very formidable waiting list, especially for those engaged in agriculture in West Cornwall?

Mr. Gammans: I wish it were possible to cut it out altogether. It entirely depends on the percentage of the national resources which can be allotted for purposes of this sort.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Middle East Personnel (Leave)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will now consider sending home by air members of Her Majesty's Forces on leave from Middle East stations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Would the Undersecretary make a clear and comprehensive statement, for the benefit of members of Her Majesty's Forces in the Middle East, as to the circumstances in which they can, at Government expense, come home on short leave?

Mr. Ward: I think the members of Her Majesty's Forces know quite well that the circumstances in which they can come home are on compassionate grounds.

Mr. Hughes: But will the Under-Secretary take this opportunity of telling the Forces in general, as well as informing the public, the conditions in which they can come home?

Mr. Ward: Certainly, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to put down another Question asking for a statement, I shall be very glad to give it.

Service Conditions, Canal Zone

Mr. Deedes: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether in view of complaints being received in this country, he will cause an inquiry to be

made into terms of service, serving conditions and arrears of leave for officers and other ranks in the Royal Air Force stationed in the Canal Zone; and whether he will undertake a corresponding inquiry into conditions of civilians employed by his Department there.

Mr. Ward: I am fully aware that conditions in the Canal Zone are not ideal at the present time. We are, however, doing what we can both for members of the Royal Air Force and civilian employees, and I should, of course, be happy to look into any points which my hon. Friend may have particularly in mind.

Colonial Territories (Photographic Surveys)

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air in what Colonies photographic reconnaissance squadrons of the Royal Air Force have made an aerial survey since the war; and to what extent it is proposed to continue with this work.

Mr. Ward: The Royal Air Force has successfully surveyed well over a million square miles of Colonial Territories since the war. I am circulating a list of the territories in the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS my hon. Friend knows, the medium range photographic reconnaissance force is being ire-equipped with Canberras and will be concentrating on conversion training. This means that we shall be unable to carry out fresh aerial surveys for some time to come.

Mr. Robinson: Will my hon. Friend give a second thought to a policy which at the same time meets the need of Air Force training and colonial development?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir, but this conversion training on Canberras must take place. There are still the resources of private charter companies for air survey.

Following is the list:


Aden.
Northern Rhodesia.


Basutoland.
Nyasaland.


Bechuanaland.
Sarawak.


Gambia.
Sierra Leone.


Gold Coast.
Somaliland.


Kenya.
Swaziland.


Malaya.
Tanganyika.


Mauritius.
Uganda.


Nigeria.
Zanzibar and Pemba.


North Borneo.

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what explanations his experts in the Meteorological Office have advanced for the inordinate amount of fog suffered by the country during recent months.

Mr. Ward: Fogs occur in calm and cloudless conditions associated with persistent anticyclones. These have been unusually frequent this winter.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Since fog has now become a major weapon of killing can we be assured by my hon. Friend that his experts are now in close touch with the Ministry of Fuel and Power as to the extent to which fog is caused by the unwelcome and undue amount of soot and smoke coming from the chimneys in our large cities?

Mr. Ward: Fog itself is not caused by smoke; it is only polluted by smoke.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Cyprus Airport (Use)

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation why the facilities offered by the Cyprus Government for the construction of an international airport on the island for use by British Overseas Airways Corporation's Asiatic and African services have been refused.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): I am not aware that an offer has been made.

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether Cyprus will be transferred from the British European Airways Corporation's operating area to that of the British Overseas Airways Corporation at an early date.

Mr. Profumo: An agreement has been reached between the two Corporations for the British Overseas Airways Corporation to operate certain services through Cyprus additional to the present terminating service operated by British European Airways in conjunction with Cyprus Airways. My right hon. Friend hopes to reach a decision in this matter very shortly.

Mr. Alport: Does not my hon. Friend think that this change would enable Cyprus to be developed as a first-class Commonwealth airport, instead of the use of foreign airports in the Levant as is at present the case?

Mr. Profumo: I have no doubt that this will help.

Scottish Services

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation why the Scottish Aviation Company has discontinued its service from Prestwick to London; and what steps are to be taken to supply an alternative service for the convenience of the public.

Mr. Profumo: I understand that the Company discontinued the service because it was uneconomic. The facilities provided by British Overseas Airways Corporation for travel between Prestwick and London will be substantially increased this summer and British European Airways provide services from Renfrew to London. It is open to any independent company to apply to the Air Transport Advisory Council for permission to provide additional services.

Mr. Hughes: Has not private enterprise failed to carry out this service? Is the Minister aware that if one goes by B.O.A.C. one may go to Iceland instead of to Prestwick; and will he consider arranging for the B.E.A. service from Renfrew to London to call at Prestwick?

Mr. Profumo: Such arrangements are not within the power of my right hon. Friend. I think that if the hon. Gentleman finds himself on the wrong aeroplane, it is not the fault of our Department.

Sir T. Moore: Is not the real reason that so many travellers feel it to be a patriotic, although possibly a mistaken, duty to support the bankrupt British nationalised railways?

Mr. Rankin: The Minister has not got the point. Is he aware that almost at the last moment the service scheduled for Prestwick may be diverted via Shannon, and there is no alternative service provided for the traveller?

Mr. Profumo: That is another question.

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation how many charter licences have been applied for between Edinburgh and London.

Mr. Profumo: None, Sir.

Flying Training

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what ways are now open for initial flying training for young men in this country who wish to follow the career of civil air-line pilot; and if he is satisfied that civil aviation will have adequate numbers of pilots within the next five years.

Mr. Profumo: The Royal Air Force and Royal Navy will continue to provide a source of initial flying training for young men who wish to become civil airline pilots. Initial flying training can also be obtained at a number of civil establishments. My right hon. Friend is at present examining in consultation with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air how many pilots are likely to be available in the future.

Mr. Beswick: Since the restriction on the training of National Service men and on Volunteer Reserve training, it is now almost impossible for a young man to get the initial expensive training unless he goes into the Royal Air Force as a Regular recruit, and will the hon. Gentleman look again into this matter, because in two or three years' time there will be a shortage of civilian recruits?

Mr. Profumo: My right hon. Friend will, of course, take any action which he may consider necessary in this respect.

Mr. de Freitas: In taking whatever action is considered necessary, will the hon. Gentleman read the report of the debate on the Air Estimates showing the alarming state of training as a result of the Government's policy?

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend represent to his right hon. Friend that a committee should be set up to see that the country is adequately served with sufficient pilots in the years to come?

Mr. Profumo: We are at present in touch with the operators on this aspect.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he is aware that the reduction in the number of flying training

schools will mean that some municipalities will have to consider closing their airports; and, as this will further restrict private flying in this country, what steps he is taking to provide alternative facilities.

Mr. Profumo: I am aware that a number of licensed aerodromes, both municipal and privately owned, will be seriously affected by the closing of the training schools, and that some, though I hope not many, may be forced to close down. While I should regard any reduction in the facilities available for private flying as a matter for regret, there has never been any question of aerodromes being provided by the State specially for the use of flying clubs and private owners.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that because facilities at municipal airports are being reduced, the number of civilian flyers is going to be reduced, and that, in turn, is going to affect the position at other municipal airports; and does he mean to say that no steps are being taken to break into this vicious circle? Are we going to be left right behind in the development of civil aviation?

Mr. Profumo: I am in close touch with the Aerodrome Owners' Association on this matter.

JORDAN (DEMILITARISED AREA)

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will raise in the appropriate United Nations Committee, the problem of the Mount Scopus demilitarised area in Jordan; whether he is aware that since June, 1950, there have been more than 50 recorded instances of firing by Jewish police in this area, as well as other abuses of the agreement of 7th July, 1948, many of which have been the cause of regular protests by the Jordan Government, and none of which has resulted in any action by the United Nations Chief of Staff; and why the agreement of 7th July, 1948, did not automatically lapse in accordance with paragraph 1 when hostilities ended between Israel and Jordan.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): The proper authority for dealing with the points


raised in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question is the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, which is responsible through its Chief-of-Staff to the Security Council.
There have for some time past been disputes between Israel and Jordan in connection with the demilitarised zone of Mount Scopus and we have done what we could by good offices to provide solutions for them. Under the cease-fire agreement of 1948, the United Nations is responsible for the security of the area. In Her Majesty's Government's view any request which the United Nations Chief-of-Staff may make to the parties should be complied with without unnecessary delay.
The question of whether the cease-fire agreement of the 7th July, 1948, was superseded by the General Armistice Agreement signed between Israel and Jordan on 3rd April, 1949, raises intricate legal issues affecting both Jordan's and Israel's claims to the area and the part played by the Truce Supervision Organisation. As we are not members of that Organisation, these are not matters for Her Majesty's Government to decide.

Major Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among the many unfortunate consequences of the so-called Demilitarisation of the Mount Scopus area is the very unhappy position of the British graveyard in that area, and can he say a word about that?

Mr. Eden: I do know about that. I have had representations from various sources about it. We have approached the Israel Government about the matter, but it affects the Commonwealth Governments as well as ourselves. I am sorry to say they have not yet found themselves able to remove the mines which are the chief cause of anxiety.

Mr. Janner: Would the right hon. Gentleman direct the attention of the appropriate Committee to Article 8 of the General Armistice Agreement between Jordan and Israel which provided that there should be deliberations between Jordan and Israel, or their representatives, so that the normal functioning of the cultural and humanitarian institutions at Mount Scopus shall be accessible? Does he realise that it is a very serious and disgraceful thing that these institutions are not being used, and will he do what he can to help in this matter?

Mr. Eden: I have indeed done what I can, but I do not think any discredit can lie upon Her Majesty's Government because an organisation of which we are not a member has failed to bring about better relations between Israel and Jordan.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any further attempt on his part to resolve the problem as a part of a wider settlement would have the general support of all sides of the House? In the meantime, would it not be advisable for the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) to couch his Questions in a less provocative fashion?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I should like to set myself up as a judge of provocation in any differences between Israel and the Arab States.

CORONATION AMNESTY (DESERTERS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider extending the amnesty for deserters who served all through the last war and deserted in the following years.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on 2nd March.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the present amnesty is unfair to the men who served throughout the war and did not desert until later? Is he aware that I have here a letter from a man who served in Egypt, Italy and France and only deserted in 1947, when the Prime Minister was out of office, presumably doing so as a protest? Will not the Prime Minister show a little human sympathy towards such people?

The Prime Minister: I hope I shall not be accused of lacking in human sympathy if I do not add anything to the answer which I have just given the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon Gentleman realise the anomalous position which has been created in that men who served throughout the war and rendered excellent service, and against whom no blemish can be imputed, but who deserted after the war are not


brought within the ambit of the amnesty, whereas those who deserted during the war and did not render appropriate service come within its scope?

The Prime Minister: When a measure of this kind is taken, there are always a certain number of hard cases which do not fit in. They deserve attentive and patient consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does it denote that, in view of this anomalous position, and without his making any commitment at this moment, he will give the matter further consideration?

The Prime Minister: I could say an awful lot in this House if I were given the general guarantee that I was making no definite commitment at the time, but, lacking that guarantee, I should like to see that supplementary question put upon the Order Paper in the ordinary course.

Sir T. Moore: Since this amnesty policy has been decided upon and published, is my right hon. Friend aware that the country warmly supports this generous method of dealing with the problem?

Mr. Langford-Holt: While appreciating that the amnesty is bound to give rise to very difficult anomalies, might I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind when he is considering the matter that there is probably more justification for mercy being shown to those who deserted prior to the war but voluntarily enlisted and gave full service with the Forces during the war?

The Prime Minister: I certainly do not close any door upon the careful and patient consideration of exceptional cases.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will announce the result of the consultations between the Service Ministers and the Law Officers relating to the amnesty for deserters.

The Prime Minister: On the legal matters arising from the amnesty, I must refer the hon. Member to the statements made by my right hon. and learned Friends the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary, on 11th March and yesterday. No formal consultations are taking place between the Service Ministers and the Law Officers, but, of course, the

decisions announced have been reached after taking account of Service and legal considerations.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is not there a special problem of the deserters who applied by mistake, some of whom are under close arrest at the present time? Is the Prime Minister aware that at the present rate we shall never get rid of this wretched hangover of the war period? Will he wipe the slate clean and once and for all cut out the documentation and adjudication of individual cases and let these men fit themselves back into civilian life as best they can?

GERMANY (OCCUPATION COSTS)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the West German Government to the effect that Britain should pay substantially all the cost of maintaining British Forces in Germany after next July; and what reply he has made to these representations.

Mr. Eden: None, Sir. In view, however, of a public statement by the German Federal Finance Minister that no German contribution would be made after 1st July, 1953, to the cost of Allied troops stationed in Germany, the Allied High Commission has recently reminded the German Federal Chancellor that the amount of assistance to be provided for the support of Allied forces after 1st July, 1953, remains to be negotiated, on the assumption that the Conventions and the European Defence Community Treaty will have come into force by that date. Until they do, the local costs of our Forces in Germany will continue to be met by the Federal Government as Occupation Costs.

Mr. Fletcher: Does that mean that whether the present plans for German rearmament under treaties which have not yet been ratified go forward or not, the Government will do their best to obtain a maximum contribution from Germany for the maintenance of our Forces there?

Mr. Eden: It means that, until the agreements are ratified, matters will go on as they have been going on up to date and after the ratification of the treaty there will be discussions about the contributions which are to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA

United Nations

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now instruct the British representative at the United Nations Assembly to propose that the Chinese People's Government is admitted to the United Nations.

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on this matter to a supplementary question by the hon. Member on 21st January last.

Mr. Donnelly: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say yesterday in reply to a supplementary question:
… I am not prepared, so long as I am Foreign Secretary of this country, to advocate to the United Nations the recognition of a Government who are in full aggression against the United Nations…. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1953; Vol. 512, c. 2080.]
Is not this a direct contradiction in terms of the fact that Her Majesty's Government's policy is still to recognise the Peking Government and negotiate representation between the two Governments?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman must surely be aware that recognition took place before the act of aggression and the act of aggression was condemned by a Resolution of the Assembly itself in February, 1951, during the time of the late Government. I do not see how in those circumstances it could conceivably be thought that I could come forward at this moment when they are still attacking United Nations troops in Korea and advocate their membership of the United Nations.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that membership of the United Nations Organisation is not necessarily a reward for good behaviour but is also an opportunity to restrain potential aggressors?

Mr. Eden: I did not say that it was a reward for good behaviour—that would indeed be a new definition for membership of the United Nations—but this is quite another matter. The late Government themselves refrained from advocating membership of the United Nations once the Resolution was passed, and I think their attitude was absolutely right. Will the hon. Gentleman please recall that only last November peace offers were

put forward in the Indian Resolution with the approval of 50 United Nations members and rejected by the Communists, who are still attacking our troops. How, then, can we say that they should be members of the United Nations Organisation?

Miss Lee: Do we understand from the Foreign Secretary's reply that Soviet Russia is in no way involved in the fighting in Korea? Does the Foreign Secretary wish to give the impression that open aggression is punished and insidious aggression is not punished? Would it not be better to accept the point already made by my hon. Friend and try to get all the nations represented?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. As I see it, I am governed by a Resolution passed by the United Nations themselves in February, 1951, during the life of the late Government and endorsed by the late Government, which condemned the Communist Chinese Government for an act of aggression in Korea. While that act is still going on, I consider myself bound by the terms of that Resolution.

Strategic Cargoes

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding the Anglo-American agreement to prevent the use of British ships for the carrying of goods to China and the use by ships of the Soviet bloc of British ports in carrying out the same errand.

Mr. Eden: I referred to these measures in my statement yesterday on the Washington talks. There are two ways in which our controls are being strengthened.
In the first place, since British ships cannot carry strategic materials to China from British ports, it is anomalous for them to be able to do so from other ports. Existing powers under Defence Regulation 46 are therefore to be used so as to provide that voyages of United Kingdom and colonial ships to China require a licence which will preclude the carriage to China of listed strategic goods from any source. The necessary order, Control of Trade by Sea (China and North Korea) Order, was laid before Parliament on 16th March by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
Secondly, arrangements are being worked out with the authorities in the British territories concerned to prevent ships engaged in the carriage of strategic cargoes to China from being bunkered in ports under British control.

Mr. Donnelly: Is it not a fact that the previous embargo meant that only a very small quantity of goods were likely to be involved by this new policy, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware, therefore, that the general impression is given that this is a political demonstration which may be leading to a sliding into a naval blockade against China? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that no intention of that kind whatever is intended, and that we will not indulge in any kind of naval blockade?

Mr. Eden: Until the hon. Gentleman suggested it, I had not seen any suggestion that we were sliding into any sort of naval blockade. I made it quite clear in my public statement in the United States, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Gentleman and I hope he will read it, that this is not a new policy. It is strictly a fulfilment of a policy which we are obliged to carry out by the United Nations Resolution of May, 1951, which the late Government agreed to.

Captain Duncan: Could my right hon. Friend give us any rough idea of the size of the trade?

Mr. Eden: I do not consider it is at all large, but it is a fact that in many American minds it bulks very large, and I think it is a good thing that we should make it absolutely plain that, having agreed to these regulations, we shall make them effective.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm our understanding of what he has just said, that the new action now taken is in pursuance of a United Nations' Resolution and not beyond the action there proposed?

Mr. S. O. Davies: It is not.

Mr. Eden: It is to make that Resolution effective. For the sake of argument, I might say it was 94 per cent. effective before, and we hope to make it 99 per cent. or 100 per cent. effective now.

Mr. McGovern: What attitude will be adopted by this country towards the

Polish ships that are moving rubber from Ceylon? I understand that these Polish ships are being loaded in Ceylon, and under this agreement what is the attitude we are to adopt about the passage of that rubber from Ceylon to China?

Mr. Eden: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would put down special cases of that kind. As a general principle, we are not prepared to bunker at British ports ships which are carrying strategic materials to China.

EAST COAST FLOOD LOSSES (COMPENSATION)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a statement about the recent flood disaster.
First I should like to say a word about the high tides which reached their peak during the past two days. We have been blessed with calm seas and the defences that have been restored since 1st February have held. A small number of breaches in different parts of the coast are still open, but second lines of defence built behind them have withstood the tides and the area flooded is small. In particular, the temporary bank protecting the village of Wells-next-the-Sea was not penetrated. The front line will be closed as soon as possible.
As the Government announced, Lord Waverley has accepted the Chairmanship of the Departmental Committee which is being set up to review the lessons of the recent disaster and to make recommendations for the future. I hope to be able to announce the names of the other members of the Committee in the very near future.
I now turn to the question of compensation for damage and losses caused by the recent floods. Perhaps I may briefly recapitulate the steps already taken. The first task was the immediate repair of the breaches in our sea defences. This was tackled straight away by the river boards, who were given an assurance from the start that they would be reimbursed the full cost of their operations. Total expenditure on these first-aid repairs is likely to be about £2½ million.
It was also necessary to look after those who had been rendered homeless. Rest centres were set up, emergency feeding arrangements were put in hand, lodging payments were authorised for householders who were willing to accommodate victims of the floods, and the National Assistance Board made payments in cash to those in need. All this expenditure, which will be of the order of £250,000-£500,000 will be borne on the Votes of the Departments concerned. The Government will also pay for first-aid repairs to damaged private houses, including the removal of mud and sand.
Certain longer-term measures are also required.
We have to restore and strengthen our sea defences, and to finish the task so far as possible before the next winter. The river boards mainly concerned have been told that the cost of rebuilding the defences to provide the same standard of protection as before will be borne entirely by the Government for all works carried out by the end of September next; and that where an improved standard of protection is necessary the rate of grant will be a matter for negotiation. In some cases, for example, where special protection is provided for an important installation it would be reasonable to expect the undertaking concerned to make a contribution.
A Bill will shortly be introduced strengthening the powers of river boards to enter on lands and do works to restore our sea defences. Such works will relate not only to the repair of existing sea walls and the building of new ones, but also to the quarrying of material required for that work and the construction of access roads. The Bill will provide for the compulsory acquisition of land on which work is done should this prove desirable. Between now and the end of September work costing between £8 and £10 million may be done and further work will be necessary thereafter.
The Government recognise that the floods have created some difficult problems connected with the rehabilitation of agricultural land, for which special provision will have to be made, particularly in view of their long-term nature. As a nation, we cannot afford to lose for many years and possibly for ever the productivity of thousands of acres of farm land.
The free supply of gypsum, where it is needed, and the removal at the Government's expense of flood-borne debris from drains and ditches, have already been announced. In addition to these measures, the Government propose to make acreage payments to farmers whose land was so badly affected by sea water flooding as to require special treatment before normal cropping or grazing can be undertaken without serious risk of making the damage worse. The farmers will be expected to conform to an approved programme of restoration. These payments will vary according to the kind of treatment required and to the risk of reduced yields and may extend if necessary over a period of five years. Expenditure on crops sown prior to the floods will be taken into account in fixing the rates of payment The necessary statutory powers will be included in the Bill to which I have referred.
Orchards that have been destroyed will be dealt with on rather different lines, but with the same general object in view. The existing arrangements for Exchequer grants towards the cost of cleaning out drains and ditches in the flooded areas will in principle be extended at a higher rate to work not directly arising out of the floods in order to assist the free flow of water and so get rid of the salt more quickly. The reasonable cost of fences to replace destroyed hedges and of repairs to fences will be borne by the Government. Finally, where it is practicable, the Government will assume responsibility for removing large accumulations of sand and debris from farm land. The total cost of all these measures for the rehabilitation of the land is roughly estimated at between £5-£7 million.
Woodlands in the North-East of Scotland suffered very heavily as a result of the recent gale. Altogether about 35 million cubic feet of timber—most of it privately owned—was blown down. To pre-vent the loss or deterioration of this timber, it is essential that it should be cleared up within a period of not more than two years, and the Government are considering what arrangements can be made to facilitate the transport of the timber which cannot be handled locally to sawmills in the South of Scotland for sawing and marketing.
Many local authorities have suffered damage and losses and are incurring expenditure on a substantial scale. It will


not be possible to deal with each claim individually, and at a later date there will have to be a general settlement between the Government and the local authorities which are in a position of special difficulty through having to incur expenditure on repairing flood damage. In that settlement the Government will be prepared to assist those authorities which have unavoidably incurred burdens which are unreasonably heavy in relation to their resources.
Meanwhile, in view of the magnitude of the disaster, the Government will reimburse in full to any local authority the cost of restoring coast protection works to the condition they were in before the floods. If new works have to be undertaken, as in some areas they will, they will rank for grant under the Coast Protection Act in the usual way. Where the expenditure on new works is heavy and the authority's resources are small, the Government will be prepared to consider a higher rate of grant than is normal. The question when it will be possible to authorise works will have to be considered on each scheme in relation to the resources available.
Hon. Members will have seen in the Press a statement giving further information as to the uses to which the Lord Mayor proposes to put his Fund, and I have received a letter from the Lord Mayor giving full particulars of these arrangements. With his agreement, I propose to circulate this letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The guiding principle is the relief of personal distress.
It will be seen from the Lord Mayor's letter that grants will be made to the dependants of those who lost their lives, and to those whose houses were damaged beyond repair; grants will be made for the repair of other damaged homes, and for the replacement of furniture, clothing and other personal property in the home; and assistance will also be given to the farmer that will cover buildings, dead stock, and the full value of livestock killed. There will also be help for personal businesses and I should like to say a few words about the arrangements under this head. Grants will be made in respect of damage to, or loss of, the stock in trade or premises of a personal business or small partnership within a normal

limit of £5,000. The Lord Mayor has stated that he will authorise a grant above this figure on evidence that unusual and immediate hardship and distress would result if the grant were limited to £5,000, although he has said that his present information is that "such cases can be numbered on the fingers of both hands."
I should like to make clear where the Government stand in this matter of compensation to business concerns. In our view public limited liability companies fall into a different category both from individuals and personal businesses, and should not be compensated for losses which are capable of being covered by insurance. If they did not insure, they were taking a calculated commercial risk and they must bear responsibility for their decision. I am sure that the House will agree that it would not be right to expect the taxpayer or the ratepayer to subsidise "big business" which is well able to look after itself.
There may, however, be cases which fall between the personal business which can look to the Lord Mayor's Fund for assistance and the large public company which cannot. For example, there might be a business, in form a public company, which carried on operations on a small scale and might be in a position of difficulty as the result of the floods. If there is a case of a small business where hardship is involved, the Government undertake to look at it to see whether any assistance can be given.
The House will wish me to express on its behalf our great appreciation of the generosity of the public here and of our friends overseas in having contributed on such a scale to the Lord Mayor's Fund, and also to express our thanks to the Lord Mayor himself and his staff for the energy, skill and speed with which the Fund was set up and is now being administered.
The Government recognise that the loss and suffering caused by a disaster of this kind cannot be completely recompensed by financial payments, but the decisions which I have outlined today for the provision of assistance from public funds, and the arrangements by the Lord Mayor's Fund, to which incidentally the Exchequer is making a contribution on the basis of £ for £, will go a very long


way towards mitigating the losses which so many of our fellow citizens have had to endure.

Mr. Ede: I am sure that the whole House will join with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in expressing our thanks to the public for their generous response to the Lord Mayor's appeal, and to the many people overseas who have also shown a feeling of comradeship for us in the disaster which so many of our fellow citizens suffered.
I must say, however, that I cannot regard the statement that has been made as a satisfactory redemption of the pledge that was given by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on the first day that the House sat after the disaster. I am sure that a very large number of people in the country will hear with feelings of anxiety and dismay the closing words of the statement that it is only expected "to go a very long way towards mitigating the losses." That is by no means a redemption of the pledge that was given, and I have no doubt that more will be heard of that in the future.
I must apologise to the House. It was a very long statement, and even if I make some small demand on the time of the House I must not be regarded as completely covering all the points that have arisen.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that the losses expected to have been incurred totalled from £40 million to £50 million, but did not say how these are spread among private persons, limited liability companies and public authorities. Could he give us some indication of the extent to which those losses are being met by the measures which he announced today? I add the figures which were definitely announced today up to a total of between £16 million at the minimum and £20 million at the maximum with, of course, ill-defined figures where the right hon. and learned Gentleman submitted no estimate to us at all.
I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say, also, why this House was not informed of the appointment of the committee under Lord Waverley and his acceptance of the chairmanship, and why it was left to an Under-Secretary in another place to make this important announcement?
There is just one other matter on which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give us some information. He said that he thinks that where there is a substantial installation which will be protected by the new works they should make some contribution towards the cost of the work. He does not indicate that the authority concerned with the erection of installations will be given power to levy on such installations. Will it be left to private negotiations between some river board or small authority and the installation, or will there be something in the Bill that will enable that matter to be dealt with?
I have asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he can tell us the number of people in each of the categories affected. He said that those whose claim was likely to be more than £5,000 could be numbered on the fingers of both hands. Does that include farmers, whose losses of livestock, as well as of buildings, may have been particularly heavy?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Perhaps I might deal with that last point, as I know how difficult it is to pick up every detail from a statement. I should like to make the point clear about farmers. I did say that buildings and dead stock—which means things other than crops in the ground and hedges—and all the livestock, will all be paid for by the Lord Mayor's Fund at the market valuation. Crops in the ground and hedges and ditches, are dealt with under the acreage payment, which also covers the rehabilitation of the land. As far as I can see, that leaves no gap in the agricultural sphere. If there is one, I cannot see it.
With regard to the announcement of the chairmanship of the committee, there was a debate in another place and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary took the opportunity of adding that in the course of his answer to the debate. I hope that in those circumstances the House will not think that any discourtesy was intended—I meant to make a statement, I have repeated it today, and I shall announce the committee as soon as I have all the acceptances.
On the question of installations, these might be simply private enterprise companies. In that case, they would probably desire, as they have in the past— and, in any case, they will be asked— to make a contribution to the protection


work around their places. With regard to those that are owned by the public boards, in the sense of being publicly owned, that will be a matter for the board or for the local authority involved.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to try to correlate the sum I gave to the House of £40 million to £50 million and the arrangements that have been made. He will appreciate that such an attempt must involve a number of estimates because it is a protracted matter to collect all the claims. They have not yet been collected and therefore, the element in this matter of personal and small business claims is one on which I cannot give a definite figure. However, I would like to make an attempt at correlation, because it might be helpful to the House and I hope that the House will bear with me if I try to do so.
On 19th February I gave the figure of £40 million to £50 million as my estimate of the total loss. That is now believed to be on the high side but, again, the figure cannot yet be definitely ascertained. May I now give the other side of the account, as that may be helpful?
First of all, there are the losses on Government stocks and Government establishments as mentioned in my speech on 19th February. They amount to £3,500,000. Then there are the first-aid repairs which I mentioned today: £2,500,000. Personal payments mentioned today: £250,000 to £500,000. Sea defences: £8 million to £10 million. Rehabilitation of land: £5 million to £7 million. Local authorities—this can be only a guess because there has to be a final settlement; but I gave the estimated figure of loss as £4,500,000 to £5 million and I think the House will agree that, in view of what I have said about arrangements as to grant, the minimum figure must be £3,500,000 to £4 million. Then, of course, there is the Lord Mayor's Fund which to date has approximately £6 million. That gives us in all a figure of between £28,750,000 and £33,500,000.
There are three items which I cannot evaluate. The first consists of losses covered by insurance. I am not in possession of that figure. Hon. Members will have seen very large estimates, in certain papers as high as £20 million. I cannot say whether that is right. I think it is probably on the high side, but there

is a considerable figure there which cannot yet be ascertained and which one cannot yet collect from the companies. The second consists of losses to large public companies who bear their own risk. Again, I cannot give a figure, but it must be a considerable one from the damage that is known to all of us who have been studying that point. Thirdly, there is the much smaller figure for the removal of the timber in Scotland.
As I have said, the comparison is between £28,750,000 and £33,500,000 plus the three unknown amounts that I have just mentioned—which must be very considerable on any view—and the first rough estimate of £40 million to £50 million which I believe to be on the high side. I hope the House will agree—it is a matter on which everyone must reach his own opinion in considering the problem—that, after taking into account the certain figures I have given, the estimate as to local authorities and these three substantial figures which I cannot evaluate, the totals should correspond reasonably closely. One cannot say further than that because it is an estimate at the time, but that is the best answer on the available information I can give to the question of the right hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the House will be with me in this. I should not like it to be inferred from anything I have said in the course of this statement that the need for contributions to the Lord Mayor's Fund has now ceased, because everyone must wish to put the relief of personal distress beyond any peradventure.

Mr. Hare: Is the Home Secretary aware that his statement will go a long way towards reassuring the many anxieties felt on both sides of the House about the treatment of flood victims? May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he would consider giving greater publicity to what he has just said? Would he consider a broadcast? Would he consider asking his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to take special action to see that the farming community are fully aware of the details of the complicated but full statement that he has given us this afternoon?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I shall be pleased to consider that. It is difficult to get across to the person concerned all the proposals that have been put out and


I hope that everyone will try to contribute to that end. I will certainly consider doing anything I can.

Mr. Edward Evans: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that the statement he has made has given the impression to some of us on this side of the House of a very considerable recession from the general statement that the Prime Minister made on 2nd February? I want to ask him one or two questions, particularly in regard to the local authorities. The local authorities concerned with the seaside resort industry, largely on the East Coast, will be very anxious about what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the amount of compensation they are to get to restore their amenities and to restore their considerable sea fronts which are used for resort purposes.
I understood that there were to be negotiations between them and the appropriate Minister at the time and that they would be expected to make the contribution themselves, but most of those authorities are extremely hard pressed by the incidence of coast protection at the moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned river boards, but in a great many instances it is the coast protection authority that will have to restore the sea defences. I hope sincerely that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not ask them to pay a contribution on the basis on which they had to pay in the old days when there was no State grant for sea defences by coast protection authorities.
One more point about the statement of the Prime Minister. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland on 10th February mentioned trawlers that were lost and that it was promised that the crews of the trawlers would be compensated.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I really do not think the hon. Gentleman can have listened to my statement. I mentioned quite clearly that the loss of life was to be covered and I say it again—it covers all loss of life. The question of gear is a matter of the assets of the trade, which are also covered.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned local authorities. Again, every point that he asked is covered in my statement. I said that the question of protection would

be dealt with and that the question of authorities that were in a difficult financial position owing to the damage would receive special consideration and be the matter of negotiation, as would the amount of the grant. For the hon. Member to get up and make these statements just after I have said exactly the contrary is really irresponsible.

Mr. Evans: rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Member must take the answer. He must be fair.
The hon. Member says that this is a recession from the original statement. I have just told the House that our original estimate was between £40 million and £50 million. I challenge the hon. Member to give any fair evaluation of these three items which I have mentioned that does not bring the figure that I have given—

Mr. Evans: rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Evans: On a point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a specific question and challenged me to give the answer. I will tell him. The Prime Minister said that this was to be a national charge, and now the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about negotiations. We do not want any huckstering over this thing.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said was that it was a national matter, to be dealt with broadly in a national way. I challenge the hon. Member, and will give way to him if he can do it, to make any evaluation of these three items—insurance, public companies carrying their own risks, and the Scottish timber—that does not close the gap that I have mentioned between £33,500,000, which is the top figure, or even £28,750,000, which is the bottom figure, and the figure of £40 million plus. What is the hon. Gentleman complaining of?

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have a debate on this matter at an early date. While it is quite in order to ask questions for the elucidation of a statement, these arguments and counter-challenges are not regular at this time.

Mr. H. Morrison: There is one short point of information about which I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not gather from his statement what specifically was to be done in respect of houses or bungalows which have been destroyed or severely damaged. What will be the position of these folk? Many of them are in the position that they simply cannot replace their house or bungalow.

Mr. Bowles: Now let the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer in the same tone of voice.

Several Hon. Members: Behave yourself.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's remark.

Mr. Bowles: I said I hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would reply to the Front Bench as strongly as he replied to my hon. Friend on the back benches.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Touché, if I may put it that way. One is rather inclined to answer in proportion to the question that is put. I felt rather strongly about the answer and I replied accordingly. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is a point of information, and I will give it as calmly as I can.
There are two categories which the right hon. Gentleman should consider. The first is the damage. First-aid repairs will, of course, be paid for by the Government. What happens after first-aid repairs, as appears in the Lord Mayor's letter, is a matter for the Lord Mayor's Fund. The residences and houses that have been damaged beyond repair are matters for the Lord Mayor's Fund, and the Lords Mayor's letter says that he has made provision for it.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a few families—not a large number— who will be unable to return to their homes because these have been rendered uninhabitable? I do not expect a snap answer now, but I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend would bear very much in mind the need for the early provision of alternative housing for such families.

Sir D. Maxwel Fyfe: That matter is being considered, and I hope that we shall be able to help.

Mr. Hoy: Would it be permissible for me to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make on compensation for timber and, secondly, what claims he has had from the Scottish fishing industry?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): My right hon. and learned Friend dealt in his statement with the timber loss. We are at present negotiating and are hoping to arrange satisfactory freight terms in order to get to the mills in the South the timber which cannot be sawn and handled locally. With regard to fishing losses, some of the boats were insured and in the case of other boats negotiations are at present taking place with the insurance companies. The total of the damage and loss of boats amounts to about £46,000.

Commander Maitland: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question concerning agriculture? Will he say specifically that a farmer who has to fallow his land owing to flood damage will be eligible for acreage payment, and how the acreage payment is to be decided? Secondly, in the case of a local authority whose roads have been very badly damaged by heavy vehicles going over them, will such an authority have special relief in their rating problems?

Sir D. Maxwel Fyfe: In reply to the first point, the answer is, "Yes." In reply to the second, the acreage payment will be included in a scheme which will be submitted to the House. On the third point, I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will discover what he wants to know in the section of my statement which deals with local authorities.

Mr. Pannell: I understood the Home Secretary to speak in terms of a Departmental Committee to be set up under the chairmanship of Lord Waverley. Then he used the. word "acceptances." I understood that a Departmental Committee was a committee of civil servants. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg pardon. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make the composition of this Committee a little clearer? It seems to me, and we made the point in the recent


floods debate, that what we will have to consider against another such contingency is the power of local authorities. Consequently, there should be a degree of the elected element on such a Committee.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. It is a Departmental Committee and I shall be able to announce its composition in a few days. The point that the hon. Member has in mind will be a matter which the Committee can consider under its terms of reference.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Further elucidation must await the debate. We are very much behind time.

Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. Is it possible to ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, when the statement will be debated? Great anxiety is being caused to many of our constituents whom we have to see at the week-end.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know. It is not actually a point of order, but yesterday I heard the business statement and the announcement that arrangements are being made through the usual channels for an early debate on this subject. I do not know any more than that.

Following is the letter mentioned in the Home Secretary's statement:

THE LORD MAYOR'S NATIONAL FLOOD AND TEMPEST DISTRESS FUND

The Mansion House,

London, E.C.4.

17th March, 1953.

DEAR HOME SECRETARY,

I launched the appeal for my National Flood and Tempest Distress Fund on 4th February, 1953, I see you are making a statement in the House of Commons on Wednesday and I thought you would like to know how receipts and distribution are progressing.

The response to the appeal has been remarkable and heartening. The latest figure is £2,749,000 taking no account of the Government's generous decision to contribute £ for £. Large as is the sum collected so far, more is needed if we are to deal with all pressing cases of distress in the way they deserve. I myself shall not relax and I am confident that the public will not fail.

On the spending side, my main policy is formed and arrangements for carrying it into effect are well advanced. The Fund must be spent on the relief of personal distress and hardship; my aim is to deal adequately with the proper cases rather than reach out to a

wider, less deserving field and give inadequate help—for that is what it would mean—to all.

A few days after the disaster I sent cheques to Lords Lieutenant for immediate needs. My Distribution Committee was formed on 18th February and I immediately authorised grants of up to £25 per family as an interim measure to relieve urgent hardship. By 27th February I had decided on the general lines of distribution.

1. Dependants. A part of my Fund will be reserved for the dependants of those drowned in the floods, in the lost trawlers, and in the M.V. "Princess Victoria."
2. Homes beyond repair. A part will be reserved for those whose homes were lost or damaged beyond repair.
3. Repair of homes. My Fund will pay to make all repairable homes, which are privately owned, as decent as they were before the flood. None of this cost will fall on the individual. The Government are paying for first-aid repairs.
4. Furniture, clothing and other persona! property in the home. Grants will be made up to £150 in every case. This is in no sense a hard and fast maximum—I will authorise larger grants in cases of unusual distress, and to these cases priority will be given for the new household goods so generously sent from abroad. I have given instructions that where possible the grants shall be in the form of vouchers or payments of shop bills. All gifts will be additional to cash payments.
5. Personal businesses. Grants will be made up to £5,000 for stock-in-trade and buildings. This applies to personal and private businesses and partnerships, and private companies of this character. I will authorise an additional grant on evidence that unusual and immediate hardship and distress would result if the grant were limited to £5,000, although my present information is that such cases can be numbered on the fingers of both hands.
6. Agriculture. The farmer's buildings, and his deadstock (everything that was not affixed to or growing in the ground) are dealt with in the same way as personal businesses. In addition my Fund will pay the full market value of livestock killed.

I do not intend to vary these plans in principle, although in degree they will be dictated by resources. For instance the help under 4, 5 and 6 is from today greater than previously authorised. The grants under 1 and 2 will be related to individual hardship, and we are busy collecting the facts.

The test to be applied in deciding whether help should be given in any particular case is a simple one: "Did those who subscribed to the Fund intend that their money should be spent in this way? "With this test to guide them, local relief committees are now active throughout the affected areas, sponsored by the local authorities and supported by the voluntary organisations. I want my Fund to be administered locally with central guidance, and these are the people who know local needs.

There is another form of loss I should like to make good if possible. Damaged churches where the hardship is not so much personal as spiritual, and halls used for religious and


social purposes would, I know, commend themselves to subscribers to my Fund. From now on I shall therefore feel free to devote some new money to this purpose.

My team of assessors are in the field. I have urged local committees to make speedy payments on account where they can safely do so. I am confident that with good will on all sides the Fund can be distributed fairly and uniformly in accordance with the wishes of the subscribers.

Please make any use of this letter you wish.

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd.) RUPERT DE LA BERE, Lord Mayor.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.— [Mr. Crookshank.]

Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).— [Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1952–53; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1952–53; NAVY, ARMY AND AIR ESTIMATES, 1953–54; AND NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1952–53.

CLASS IX

VOTE 7. MINISTRY OF FOOD

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,899,350, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; a grant in aid; and sundry other services, including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

MINISTRY OF FOOD

4.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak briefly and generally in a few words of explanation of this Supplementary Estimate, seeking later, perhaps, to answer any questions which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may put.
This is an estimate of cash requirements, and it will be appreciated how difficult it is accurately to estimate the cash requirements of a trading Ministry of the size of the Ministry of Food. It will be appreciated that the Ministry are under obligation to purchase the home production of our farms. They have undertaken to accept the export surpluses of a number of countries and a number of commodities, and with the variation in world prices and the negotiation of new or amended agreements the position is apt to change from time to time throughout the year. It will also be appreciated


that as cash is paid on the presentation of shipping documents or even earlier, the arrival or non-arrival of individual ships can substantially affect the cash requirements.
The four subheads set out on page 2 of the Estimate—G, H. I.3 and L—reveal that Subhead H, in respect of Trading Services, contains almost the whole of this Supplementary Estimate. The details of Subhead G—Payments for Agency Services—are set out at some length on page 3. The item in respect of Northern Ireland relates to new salary agreements involving an element of retrospective payment. The payments under Subhead G (3) and (7) are in connection with the agency services being undertaken to an increasing extent by the Ministry of Labour and National Service and the Ministry of National Insurance on behalf of the Ministry of Food, and were I permitted to refer to the question of savings I should be able to show a more than corresponding saving under that heading.
But the main item is Subhead H— Trading Services. If the details are examined it will be seen that under the heading of animal feedingstuffs—and I should add that that does not include cereal feedingstuffs—there is a reduction in the anticipated credit, and in four other headings—meat, milk products, oils and fats, and sugar—there is a substantial increase over the revised Estimate. In the case of animal feedingstuffs that increase is due mainly to higher costs of procurement, and in the case of meat, milk products, and oils and fats the increase is due to larger purchases going into stock. I add the words "going into stock" because, clearly, if it were going into immediate consumption there would not be a corresponding need for cash.
In the case of meat, the early estimates of supplies from the southern Dominions, particularly Australia, happily proved to be too modest, and in the main the increase under this item is due to the larger arrivals of meat from Australia. In the case of milk products it is due largely to bigger purchases of the four main products—milk powder, butter, cheese and condensed milk—for stock. In the case of oils and fats, where the price is related to the world price, a higher price has resulted in speedier arrivals and larger purchases for stock,

and so finds reflection in the need for cash.
On page 6 there is a reconciliation of the food subsidy position with that of cash requirements. I should make it clear that there is a difference between the two. For example, food purchased and put into stock involves cash, but not, at that moment, a subsidy, and food taken from stock into consumption involves subsidy, but not, at that moment, cash. Furthermore, as will be seen in the middle of page 6, there are two non-cash items—Interest on Exchequer Advances and Services provided by other Departments—which, although they come into the food subsidy total, do not involve a transfer of cash.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) played a prominent part in securing the addition of this reconciliation. I believe it began in the middle of 1950, following recommendations contained in the Thirteenth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. Completing the subsidy story, but playing no part in the cash requirements, are the agricultural subsidies which are listed in the lower half of page 6.
Page 5 contains the Trading Estimate. That is an essential part of the reconciliation statement, for if the reconciliation statement merely stated baldly that the total subsidies administered by the Ministry of Food amounted to £297.4 million the obvious question would arise how that figure had been calculated.
That is the story in brief, and perhaps the Committee would wish me to leave my preliminary statement there and seek to catch your eye subsequently, Sir Charles, to answer any questions raised in the course of the debate.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The Supplementary Estimate for which we are now asked involves a sum of £21 million, but it is only one of a fairly large batch of Supplementaries totalling, in all, some £80 million, and that is not all that Parliament has been asked for this year. Indeed, the Supplementary Estimates, which are set out in the Paper that we are considering reach the very high total of £300 million gross and £200 million net.
We cannot even let it rest there. In this year we are faced with this very large


total of Supplementary Estimates against a background of promises and pledges for the strictest economy and slashing cuts in Government expenditure. I think it was the right hon. Member for Chip-penham (Mr. Eccles) who, before the Election, spoke about £700 million coming off, but when it came to the Budget all that disappeared and the Chancellor came forward, rather more modestly but, nevertheless, still proudly, with a saving of £10 million on normal civil expenditure. But now, even against that saving we have Supplementary Estimates totalling £200 million, and I am bound to ask at this point, what do those claims look like in the light of this "rake's progress "?
We recognise that Supplementary Estimates are often inevitable, and, indeed, necessary, and I concede at once that some of those put forward this year fall into that category. But since not only more expenditure is involved, but more than was expected, I think the Committee would agree that special reasons for scrutiny do exist. I have often thought that in the House generally we spend far too little time studying the details of expenditure in proportion to the amount of time spent on details of tax legislation. But this afternoon, at any rate, we have an opportunity to get down to detail.
In the case of the Ministry of Food on whose behalf this Vote is proposed, the whole of the Supplementary Estimate is related in some way to the policy on subsidies. I should make it plain at once that we opposed the cuts in subsidies introduced in the Budget. We thought them unfair and dangerous and we consider we were right. Therefore, in principle we cannot object to any slowing down of the policy of cutting food subsidies which may be involved in this Estimate.
I shall ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two further questions about that in a moment, but so far as the Supplementary Estimate is simply a reflection of a postponement of the cut in subsidies we would not object to it. On the contrary, we hope it indicates some fresh thinking on the part of the Government; that perhaps they have, albeit belatedly, seen some of the dangers to which we drew attention earlier on.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Wishful thinking.

Mr. Gaitskell: It may be wishful thinking—we often have wishful thinking about the Government—but we are still hopeful.
It certainly is our duty to see whether this Supplementary Estimate is simply a reflection of the postponement of subsidy cuts or whether there is more in it, and that is the question I wish to discuss now, I think the Parliamentary Secretary would agree it is a very complex Estimate. Taken as a whole it is not easy for anyone without a Departmental brief to follow the intricacies of pages 5 and 6. Although the hon. Gentleman was good enough to give us a broad picture of what was involved, there are a number of difficult details.
The original Estimate made for the Ministry of Food before the Budget last year was £375 million, of which £360 million was for trading services. We then had the Budget announcement to save £100 million in the first year; and following that a revised Estimate, produced on 27th June, where it was indicated that the subsidies would now be £309 million against the £410 million in the original Estimate. That was where the saving of £100 million was to come in. The actual Vote in that revised Estimate was for £254 million, indicating a saving of £121 million and not £100 million against the original Estimate.
As I understood, the reason for that difference was partly the adjustment of the stock position and the creditor-debtor position which accounted for half, or £10 million of the difference. The other £10 million seemed to have been produced or secured by the Treasury by introducing more agricultural food subsidies under the food subsidy ceiling. That is a question I wish to return to under the present Estimate.
Now we have this Estimate and we are asked for £21 million. In effect, this is a gross figure of £23 million for a higher trading services deficit against a saving of £2 million. It would be out of order if I discussed the details of this saving. I only mention, in passing, that the large item seems to be the ending of a payment to the British Sugar Corporation of £1 million. That, presumably, reflects the higher price which consumers now


pay for sugar, and which, therefore, makes it unnecessary to continue the subsidy.
The real question is why was there an increased deficit of £23 million on trading services? Was it, as seemed to be implied by the Parliamentary Secretary, because of a greater volume of sales and supplies? We are all aware that with a subsidised commodity if the total available which is bought and sold by the Ministry increases, and no other changes are made, the total burden of subsidy increases accordingly. So far as I can see from the trading estimates, there does not appear to be evidence of that kind, taking the group as a whole.
If the Committee will turn to page 5, they will see the cost of purchases on the one side and the sales on the other. If one contrasts the figures given here with the figures in the previous revised Estimate, I believe I am right in saying that on the income side there has been a decline of £52 million in the figure for sales in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, there has been an increase of £17 million in the figure for sales for delivery abroad, leaving a net reduction on the income side of £35 million.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary how that is to be explained. How is it that in this year, when we were all supposed to be enjoying abundant additional supplies of food, the total sales of the Ministry appeared to be down by £50 million? It certainly has not been because of any reduction in prices. We are all agreed about the large increases which have taken place.
In passing, I would say that it is very difficult to reconcile the trading estimates set out here with the actual Vote under trading services. That is set out on page 3 and shows a deficit of £261 million. But there is nowhere in the trading estimates any such figure, and if the Parliamentary Secretary could explain the exact way in which it comes in I should be grateful.
I suggest in future there should be an explanation put forward regularly of the trading estimates in relation to the actual Vote required under Item H. Incidentally, so far as I can see it is also impossible to reconcile the figures given under Item H for purchases, freight, storage, etc. on the one side and receipts from sales on the other—the figures being

£1,659 million and £1,398 million—with the totally different figure given for expenditure and income in the trading estimates. Again, if the Parliamentary Secretary could explain that we should be grateful.
It makes it extremely difficult for us to work out—and we did not get much help from the Parliamentary Secretary —exactly why £23 million more is required. I tried to calculate it and this is my conclusion, which may be right or wrong. It seems that while receipts were down by £35 million, payments were down by £22 million; that is to say, there was a need accordingly for another £13 million of cash. I do not doubt that is part of the answer.
Secondly, if we look at the trading estimates we find, under the subheads of distribution expenses, subsidies paid direct to producers, and trading deficiencies, an increase of £15 million as compared with the previous Estimate. The £101,900,000 given as the figure for distribution expenses is £5 million above the previous figure. The £80,900,000 for subsidies paid direct to producers is £8 million above the previous figure, and that for trading deficiencies is £2 million above, making £15 million in all. If that is so, it is obviously another reason why additional money is required. Together, they make up £28 million, which is more than the Estimate.
My surmise as to this discrepancy is that the credit-debit position has not, in fact, improved as much as was expected. I surmise that it was expected that there would be an improvement of £7 million —in other words, we were to pay bills faster than we were incurring liabilities— and the credit-debit position has improved by only £2 million. I take that figure not from the Trading Estimate, where it is not given at all, but from the reconciliation statement compared with the previous one. The Committee will agree that this is a most complex matter which could do with a great deal of simplification.

Mr. Nabarro: We need a balance sheet.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is a balance sheet—

Mr. Nabarro: What I said was that we need a balance sheet. It is impossible to understand the statement in its present form.

Mr. Gaitskell: I agree. It is a sort of balance sheet, but it is not a proper one. Is the explanation I have given about why the £23 million is wanted correct?
The Parliamentary Secretary rightly pointed out the difference between the Vote and the subsidy. It is a point which few people understand. The reconciliation statement certainly helps us to understand it. But as far as I can see it is really no more than a coincidence that the increase in the subsidy of about £22,500,000 is almost exactly the same as the Vote. The figure is £331,600,000 compared with £308,800,000. I repeat that that is fortuitous.
Why has the subsidy increased above the earlier Estimate? It is possible to see by looking at the reconciliation statement. We begin with £275 million which is the new total cash estimate. We then make the correction mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary for any reduction or increase in stocks and any change in the debtor-creditor position. In this case the change as compared with the previous Estimate seems to indicate that £5 million less is being provided by drawing down stocks.
Again, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether I am correct. If so, we get, on that account, from £275 million to roughly £280 million. In other words, we have an increase of £5 million this time whereas previously the increase was substantially greater.
Then we come to these rather strange "Non-cash items." The first that has to be added is interest on Exchequer advances of £12,500,000. The next is services provided by other Departments. There is nothing much here by way of direct assistance to consumers. They are what might be called book-keeping items. We have to add them. And then we come to the agricultural subsidies. They fall into a different category not only because they are administered by another Department, but because their connection with the consumer is certainly not as close as those of the Ministry of Food. The last two items—the non-cash group and the agricultural subsidies— have increased substantially since the last Estimate.
According to my arithmetic, of this £22 million increase in the subsidies, no less than £7,500,000 is due to increases in agricultural, but not food, subsidies and

in payments to the Exchequer. I pause for a moment on that last point. It is an interesting fact that during the past year the amounts which the Ministry of Food have had to pay to the Treasury on account of interest on Exchequer advances have risen from £9,500,000 in the Supplementary Estimate of exactly a year ago, to £10,900,000 in the original Estimate for this year, then to £11,400,000 in the revised Estimate for this year and now to £12,500,000 when this Supplementary Estimate is taken into account. That is an astounding increase of 33 per cent. in a year.
We ought to know why that has taken place. I think that it is right to say that it is not because there have been any substantial change in the total amount of Exchequer advances outstanding. It has, I suppose, been due to the higher rate of interest which the Ministry of Food has to pay. Therefore, for what is really a pure matter of internal book-keeping in effect the consumers have to pay another £3 million in higher prices. It is wonderful what the ramifications of a change in the Bank rate are when one really looks into them.
Then there is the other item of services provided by other Departments. Again, there has been a remarkable increase this year. The figure was £3,100,000 in the Estimate of a year ago. It was £3,500,000 in the original Estimate for this year, £4,400,000 in the revised Estimate and now it is up to £5 million. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why the Ministry have to pay so much more—about 60 per cent. more—to other Departments for their services?
Then I come to the question of agricultural subsidies. It is difficult to say which agricultural subsidies should be included under the food subsidy ceiling. There have always been some such subsidies included, but I cannot help being a little worried about the rate at which this policy is progressing. In the Supplementary Estimate for 1951–52 the figure for agricultural subsidies was £18 million. It was £21 million in the main Estimate for this year. By June in the revised Estimate it was £28 million, and now it is £34 million.
At best, one can only say that this gives a decidedly misleading impression. When the Government decide to increase or to grant a subsidy to agriculture it all looks


very nice and handsome, although to find the money they quietly filch it away from the consumer by pushing the cost under the Ministry of Food subsidy ceiling. That is precisely what has happened. I should like to know whether this process is to continue and how much the poor Ministry of Food will have left for themselves after all this has happened. I dare say that there may be come feeling inside the Ministry of Food on this point.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one other question, which puzzles me a good deal. On Monday this week, I asked the Minister of Food a Question about the way in which the subsidy saving was made during the financial year 1952–53, and he was good enough to give, in reply, a table of figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will be familiar with that reply from his own Department, but the queer thing about it is this. I understand from this reconciliation statement and from everything else that has been said that the actual saving in food subsidies this year was £80 million—£100 million less £20 million.
In fact, if we take the figure of £331 million at the bottom of the column and compare it with £410 million, the difference is £80 million. Yet the total amount which is given as saved on the list of eight commodities which the Minister gives is not £80 million but £112 million. What exactly has happened? Has the consumer had to find £112 million, and, if so, why is it not in the statement? I am sure that there must be some simple explanation, which the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give, but he will agree that it is very confusing when we are unable to find out exactly how much the consumer has paid.
I come finally to what is, after all, the major question. Why was not the original decision of the Chancellor carried out? We opposed that decision, and we were not in favour of it, but that is really no excuse for the Government to say, "Well, we are not going to carry it out," unless they really did have second thoughts about it. If they have not carried out that decision—and I have already said that there is some obscurity about it—I should like to know on which commodities did they hesitate. Was it that they did not like to advance prices

sufficiently early? That would be one explanation why the saving was only £80 million instead of £100 million. Was it that there were external factors, such as the price of Argentine meat being a good deal higher than they expected originally? Nothing that the Parliamentary Secretary has said gives us any clue as to why the price increases were not made, and I should like him to deal with that point when he replies to the debate.
Lastly, I should like to ask what is the significance of this hesitation for the future? Have all the increases now been made? If one is to take this table, they have not only all been made, but more than all been made. Are we to presume, as a result of this Estimate, that any change in policy is being introduced? What is to be the saving to be achieved next year on the ending of the subsidies on eggs and feedingstuffs? Are we to expect automatically now, and quite apart from any budgetary decision, that there will be further price increases and further reductions in subsidies?
Perhaps I might be allowed to mention the Vote on Account for the Ministry of Food, because there is a very substantial reduction of £165 million. One would expect a reduction, as compared with the total for this year, including the Supplementary Estimate of £80 million, because if, in fact, only £80 million was saved this year, we know that a full year's saving is estimated at £160 million. Therefore, if £80 million certainly was the extent of the saving, what has happened to the other £85 million? Is this the result of some new policy which the Government have introduced? Is it connected with the ending of the subsidies on eggs and feedingstuffs, or is it simply that they are going to run down stocks a great deal?
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to relieve our anxieties on this point, because there are many people in the country who are extremely worried about the way in which food prices have gone up. I believe that the increase in food prices last year has been a major stimulus in the wages-prices spiral, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite complain about the rise in the price of coal I would say to them that it is no good putting down Motions attacking the Coal Board and the miners. They ought to put down Motions attacking the Chancellor of the


Exchequer, who is the real culprit in this instance.

Mr. Nabarro: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this wild statement with the fact that, over the last few months, the cost-of-living index remained quite stable?

Mr. Gaitskell: Apart from the fact that it has gone up today, the fact that price increases took place in the early months—and that is another element in the mystery as to why the total amount of the subsidy cut was not made—does not make it any less necessary that coal miners and other workers should make up in wages for the rises in prices, and that is a major cause of the increase in the price of coal.
I was not intending to pursue that point further, however, because I feel, Sir Charles, that you already have your eye on me. However, if the Members of the Fuel and Power Group of the party opposite really want to tackle this problem seriously, they had better look at their own Front Bench and say some hard things to them instead of to the miners.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I am glad to be allowed to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who dealt with these Estimates in his customary thorough and courteous fashion. I feel confident, however, that I shall immediately incur your displeasure, Sir Charles, if I become involved in a dissertation on the price of coal or even upon its remote relationship to these Estimates.
At one point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I found myself in considerable sympathy and agreement with him.

Mr. W. R. Williams: He must be wrong.

Mr. Nabarro: On a matter of a strictly non-political character, but one which involves the technicalities of accounting the right hon. Gentleman, as an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought to be able to read a balance sheet as well as I can, but the right hon. Gentleman complained, as we often do, about the dearth of information brought to the House when

Supplementary Estimates, or, indeed, Estimates of any kind, are presented for consideration.
It is extremely difficult to reconcile the figures given on page 3 of the Estimates with the precise reasons for the increases on the original Estimate from £238,800,000 to £261,500,000, in the absence of any statement of debtors and creditors, in the absence of a profit and loss account provided in some detail, and also in the absence of a trading account. Therefore, any comments that are made on this rather simplified form of accounts now presented to the Committee must, in my view, be very largely conjectural.
However, my sympathy and agreement with the right hon. Gentleman ends there. He complains of the increases in the prices of food, which, in my view, have been very largely offset by other benefits that have been granted, but, of course, the saving is just beginning to be reflected in many of the Estimates that we are considering today, and they will be reflected much more in the Estimates for the forthcoming year, where the economy amounts to a sum of no less than £165 million. In the course of some 16 months of office, it is unreasonable to expect that the Conservative Party could have effected any greater economy in public expenditure, and particularly by the Ministry of Food, than they, have done so far.
I had occasion to say in a supplementary question not very long ago that it was the duty of the Minister of Food and his Parliamentary Secretary—and I think this is worth repeating today—to expurgate control, eliminate their Department and extinguish themselves at the earliest possible moment, and in expressing that view I believe that I take the great majority of public opinion with me.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a matter in which I have been deeply interested for some time, namely, the agricultural subsidies, which are shown on page 6. I hope it will not be out of order to discuss the large item of £6.3 million shown under the ploughing grants near the foot of the page. It is extremely difficult to say where the division comes between an agricultural subsidy and a food subsidy, for they are clearly linked one to the other, in view of the fact that this ploughing grant subsidy is primarily


for the purpose of furnishing a greater volume of feedingstuffs.
That subsidy of £6.3 million is one of the finest pieces of business this Government have done. In May, 1952, a Bill was brought to the House to provide a ploughing-up subsidy. We do not yet know its full results, but we know that one result has been that 400,000 to 500,000 tons of additional feedingstuffs have been grown at home which otherwise would have had to be imported at an average price of nearly £40 a ton.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am trying to follow this argument. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that if a food subsidy is cut and prices to the housewife go up, that is an economy, whereas if an agricultural subsidy is doubled, so that the money paid to the farmers is doubled, that is good business?

Mr. Nabarro: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this passage of my speech I think I shall make the point a little clearer to him.
I was endeavouring to demonstrate that, as a result of this wise Measure, which passed through the House last May, we have derived the benefit of several hundred thousand tons of additional feedingstuffs which otherwise would have been imported at nearly £40 a ton. The saving in foreign exchange is approximately £20 million. What we have done by paying this subsidy of £6.3 million in this country is to save approximately £20 million of foreign exchange which is a direct contribution to our balance of payments.
That is a very wide Measure. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) called it a pump-priming Measure, but it has already demonstrated its great value. I think no one in the Committee would cavil at this estimate of £6.3 million or any other purely internal, insulated, United Kingdom payments which have the result, as a corollary, of saving foreign exchange upon essential imports.
May I pass to a matter in the Estimates, which, I think, is of great importance to millions of housewives in the country—the question of sugar. On page 3, as the third item from the bottom of the table, we see that the original estimate for sugar was £4,900,000 and the

revised estimate was £9,300,000—in other words, an increase of £,4,400,000. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what this increase is for. Is it on account of an increased price of imported sugar, or may it perhaps be on account of an increase in the volume of imports of sugar? Can it be read from the revised Estimate that increased supplies may lead to the derationing of sugar at a fairly early date?
This is the most important single item to the housewife today—how to get rid of sugar rationing. It is also a major consideration to hon. Members who represent fruit-growing constituencies, of which mine is one of the most famous.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: And notorious.

Mr. Nabarro: I said that it was one of the most famous.
In the last few years we have suffered tens of thousands of tons of soft fruit in the Vale of Evesham and Western Worcestershire going to waste largely because the housewives have not had enough sugar for bottling and jamming. It is true that the Government are drawing from the Commonwealth, as they ought, every ton of sugar which can be bought. This year the figure will be of the order of 1,800,000 tons. We are using our home beet crop to the extent of 625,000 tons of sugar and we are buying from dollar sources—Porto Rico, San Domingo and Cuba—something of the order of 425,000 tons, as well as additional supplies from some Eastern European sources. But still, evidently, we have not enough to deration sugar in Britain in view of our Commonwealth agreement commitments. Does the Estimate mean that we have found some more sugar or that the price is going up? Can my hon. Friend smile with a little benevolence on the housewives and give them an assurance that this increased estimate may result in the ending of sugar rationing at a fairly early date?
There is a rather surprising point on page 2 of the Estimates—a saving on payments to the British Sugar Corporation of £1 million. Hon. Members will find it on page 2, Item L, Subhead E. We derive from beet sugar production in this country 625,000 tons of sugar annually, a monopoly in the production and processing of which is in the hands


of the British Sugar Corporation, which is largely a Government sponsored concern. There have been many complaints in the House about the restrictions on capital investment for new sugar beet factories. May I be told whether there is any carefully thought out policy for increasing beet sugar production or whether we are only relying on an increase in the next few years from Commonwealth sources of supply?
Why have we reduced the amount to the British Sugar Corporation by £1 million? Does it mean that there is an anticipated decline in home-produced beet sugar or that we are placing more reliance on Commonwealth imports or that we are devoting more dollar resources to the purchase of sugar abroad? Or what is the Government's policy about sugar, and about stimulating or otherwise the production of home-grown beet?
Finally, for many years these supplementary Estimates have been brought to the House on the account of the Ministry of Food. We shall unavoidably have one more, in 1954, but I hope it is the last. I want to see the Government get out of State trading at the earliest possible moment and restore every one of these services to private traders. [Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) muttering. Why are the Government mucking about with potato trading? It is in the Estimates. The Government have got out of the banana business. Why should they not get out of the potato business and all other forms of food business mentioned in the Estimates?

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Why can they not get out of things altogether?

Mr. Nabarro: What I mean by getting out of State business and trading is restoring to professional business men the purchase and sale of the various commodities and foodstuffs.
I hope that this is the last of these supplementary Estimates, except only for the year 1954, when there will be a residual sum to be cleared up, and that in the remaining two years of the life of this Government, from 1954 to 1956, we shall not have to consider these dismal documents, which ought to be considered

instead, in their proper place—in the warehouses and the business centres of private enterprise.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will not be surprised if I do not follow him in what he has just said. I will deal with the Supplementary Estimate which is before us. In relation to the subject of this debate I have been poacher, game-keeper, and poacher again.

Mr. Nabarro: Especially poacher.

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary has kindly referred to the part that I played in securing a reconciliation statement. That, at any rate, has put in order any discussion on the food subsidies.
As poacher, I find both the Trading Estimate and the reconciliation statement difficult documents to deal with without a Departmental brief, because it is difficult to make sure that one is making the proper deduction. Before I come to Subhead H, dealing with trading services, I should like to mention two of the other subheads. As there is a request for moneys to wind up the Commonwealth Food Gifts service, I think that the Committee would wish to take the opportunity of thanking all the people concerned at home and in the Dominions for the magnificent work which they did.
I remember that when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food I read scores of letters from children in my own constituency thanking the Australians for the food gifts which they had provided. Apart from the value of the gifts themselves, this scheme was an excellent way of creating good feeling and fellowship throughout the Dominions. If it had been known that we were going to have a Conservative Government, I think that the preliminary steps on which I was engaged in winding up this fund would have been delayed, because we have had less food since.

Mr. Nabarro: Nonsense.

Mr. Willey: So the Parliamentary Secretary has informed me, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster will see the precise figures in HANSARD.
I should not have thought that the sum of £100,000 for the procurement of emergency food stocks mentioned in the Estimate could have provided very much by way of reserve for emergency feeding. The Parliamentary Secretary should tell us why we are making this provision and why it is so small. It is rather odd that it should be made at all. I do not wish to deal with savings, but, in fact, at the same time, there are substantial savings made under "Emergency Services," and, I am sorry to see a saving made at the expense of research. If it should be in order, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee, if he will, whether any advantage was taken of these emergency services during the recent flood disaster because, unfortunate as was that flood, it provided a test for these services which have been built up.
To return to Subhead H, Trading Services (Net), the Appendix to the Trading Estimate, 1952–53, and the reconciliation statement, I note in the Trading Estimate a rather interesting figure for administrative expenditure. It is £700,000 more than was estimated under the revised Etimate in June. What does that mean? Is the Parliamentary Secretary going to disappoint the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne)? Has he not been energetic enough in cutting administrative expenditure or is the simple explanation that the Ministry of Food have not carried out some decontrol which they intended to carry out in June? That, of course, would have provided for a saving of about this nature. I am perhaps being a little optimistic, but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee what it was that they were going to decontrol and did not proceed to decontrol, if that be the case.
We should also have an explanation of the figure in the reconciliation statement of the reduction of creditors from £7,200,000 as estimated in June to £3,300,000 in the present Estimate. I will say no more about the ploughing grants and the calf subsidy, except that there will be a more appropriate occasion to discuss them later in the day if we reach those subjects in time. But it is surely a matter that seriously concerns the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that the proportion of producer

subsidies within the food subsidies is growing at such a rate.
On food subsidies generally, I would not be prepared to say that the Ministry of Food have not gone as far as they intended to go. The figures about the present position are misleading. I gathered from the Minister the other day that the Ministry of Food have done better than they expected to do. In fact, at this moment the subsidies are running at a rate of £220 million a year, whereas the Ministry's objective had been £250 million. That means, of course, that the housewife has suffered correspondingly more. I cannot understand the figures which were given in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain why the figure fo £112 million is given and why subsidies on bread and flour are excluded from these figures.
As the Parliamentary Secretary will remember, we had a debate in the House and we assumed that the £48 million saving in the food subsidy on bread and flour was one of the results of the Budget cuts in the food subsidies. Looking ahead, the Government have already announced considerable reductions—a reduction of £22 million on eggs, £30 million on animal feedingstuffs and probably £70 million on cereals—a very substantial cut in the remaining food subsidies.
Subhead H, which the Parliamentary Secretary very properly said is a cash statement, does not give figures at all, or any real indication of what the figures of food subsidies should be. I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for opening the debate and he has given a general explanation which I rather expected. He said that if one broke down the figures it would be found that a larger proportion of the purchases have gone to stock than was estimated in June. He said that the explanation in the case of oils and fats was that increased prices were reflected in the figures. I am rather surprised at that. I should have expected that the fall in world prices of oils and fats would have been reflected in the Estimate.
That leads me to a similar conclusion to which I came when I spoke on the Supplementary Estimates about 12 months ago. Why has this step been


taken? Why, particularly, has it been taken in the case of oils and fats? Surely it is because the Minister is preparing the stock position for the early derationing of oils and fats. This is bad housekeeping. The housewife wants the oils and fats now, and, incidentally, she would like them at present prices and before the price increases which precede decontrol. That is really the key to the present Supplementary Estimate.
I repeat what I said last year. The reason for this request for additional moneys is not what one would expect from a commercial Department. The Ministry are not asking, by way of Supplementary Estimate, for extra money because they bought more, or because they bought what they expected to buy, but it turned out to cost more. As the Parliamentary Secretary indicated when he dealt with the breakdown of the figures, the reason is that they have sold less. The hon. Member for Kidderminster would be surprised, but it is a fact that we have eaten less in 1952 than in 1951 however we judge it, whether by calories or animal protein—in which the Parliamentary Secretary is specially interested —or by the amount of the rations.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: It may well be that the country is taking the advice of the late Sir Stafford Cripps, when he said that the nation as a whole eats too much.

Mr. Willey: All these statements are made relative to the situation then obtaining. I did not consider—certainly the hon. Gentleman did not tell the electorate so—that the diet we had in 1951 was more than adequate. However, it is less now, although the hon. Gentleman and his friend told my constituents it would be more.

Mr. Osborne: I was not saying what we had said, but was quoting a leader for whom the hon. Gentleman had veneration.

Mr. Willey: I cannot deal with a quotation thrown in out of context, although I should be glad to deal with the matter on a more appropriate occasion.
I was coming to the figures in the cash statement to demonstrate how they proved the case that I have been making.

The purchases in the Supplementary Estimate are for £1,659,700,000, but in the revised Estimate, the preceding Estimate which was laid as late as June, they were far more, it then being anticipated that we should purchase £1,741,500,000 worth of food. In other words, we have bought £81,800,000 worth less food than we expected in June to buy.
That is the first factor, but it is not the factor which explains the Supplementary Estimate. Incidentally, it rather gives the lie to what the Minister said on the wireless. What he then said was that
we have tried over the past 15 months bit by bit to increase the amount of food you get.
But it is nothing of the sort. He has deliberately not bought foodstuffs. If he were here he would perhaps explain this as a matter of policy. However, he has deliberately not bought what it was anticipated in June that he would buy.
However, when we go to the other side for the cash statement, to the receipts from sales, we get the key to the present request for an additional £22 million. These are sales to the housewife; the Ministry's business is to buy food and sell it to the housewife. We find that the sales have been £1,398,200,000, but as recently as June the Minister, in his revised Estimate, had expected the sales would be £1,502,700,000, or £104,400,000 more. The Parliamentary Secretary should explain to the Committee why there has been this dramatic change. It is the difference between the decrease of £104 million in sales and the decrease of £81 million in purchases which explains why, according to the cash statement, he must come to the House of Commons and ask for £22,700,000. Why has he given the housewife £100 million less food than he anticipated in June?
A footnote to the cash statement says that the figures in the breakdown of the £22,700,000 also reflect changes in the level of stocks. Here is something which is very interesting, and it is very largely from this that I draw my picture of the food position which will obtain this year. The Committee will remember that we discussed the question of Christmas bonuses and stocks, and we were told that there were no stocks. But when we had the Supplementary Estimate 12 months ago what did we find? We found


that the Ministry of Food, under the Labour Government had, in fact, doubled the large commercial stocks; they had increased the stocks from the estimated £14 million to £28 million.
What has happened this year? When he was confronted with his own Supplementary Estimate, the Minister had to describe the stocks that he was accumulating as "vast stocks" and had to explain to the House that they were accumulated by the Labour Government. One of the reasons for the increase was that we did not get the Christmas bonuses, so they remained in stock. But shortly afterwards, when we got the revised Estimate, in June, we found that out of the £28 million the Minister was to take £18½ million for current consumption this year. It was rather shabby to criticise the Labour Government when he was going to help himself out this year by using stocks which the Labour Government had provided.
When we come to the Supplementary Estimate, we find, as my right hon. Friend said, that the Ministry of Food have changed the decision about stocks. As I have explained, they have allowed less food to the housewife, but, instead of taking £18½ million worth of food out of stock, they have, according to this Supplementary Estimate, taken only £7,700,000. That clearly shows that between June and the date of the Supplementary Estimate the Ministry of Food have taken a much gloomier view of the food prospects for this year and while they had jauntily proposed to take out £18½ million from stocks, they have altered their decision taken in June and taken only £7,700,000. That is, in itself, a reflection upon what the Ministry of Food estimated to have been the food prospects.
It also shows what I argued on the Supplementary Estimate last year. What the Ministry of Food are doing is, first of all, under compulsion from the Treasury, saving some money, although very little, by holding back stocks against price increases. They are saying, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster would say if he were here, "From a business point of view, as we know we are putting up the prices, we will hold these commodities in stocks until the prices go up." The second reason, which is so obvious in the case of some of the

commodities which the Ministry are stocking up, is that they are anticipating decontrol and they are building up the amount of supplies which, against the price increases, will allow the Ministry to overcome the first onrush of decontrol.
So, generally, this is a most depressing Estimate. It indicates that the Ministry now take the view that, although we had less food in 1952 than we had in 1951, we shall have less food in 1953 than we had in 1952. It shows that the Ministry are committed to the policy of price increase and decontrol; in other words, deliberately to reduce demand and then to decontrol. Finally, it shows that the Ministry are committed to the Conservative policy of the '30s, which is deliberately to restrict imports of food.
I see the hon. Member fox Louth shaking his head, but we have had disturbing statements in the past few weeks. The Dutch and their Minister of Agriculture have been complaining that they cannot get the guarantees they want. The Danes and also the New Zealanders have been complaining. What have they been complaining about? They have been complaining that the Labour Government's policy of taking all the food that they could produce has now gone. We now have a Government which is wedded to restriction, and, within the field of restricted imports, by steep price increases they are ensuring that the few are not to be prejudiced.
I rather suspect that I have gone a little wide of the Supplementary Estimate, but it is such a gloomy document and one feels that if one missed the opportunity some hon. Members might not appreciate just how gloomy it really is.

5.19 p.m.

Dr. Hill: The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) struck in me a sympathetic note when he referred to the complexity of this Estimate, a complexity which he will agree arises in considerable degree from the truncated form of the Trading Estimate. He did not challenge the Trading Estimate or its form on the grounds of its limited character, though from time to time he suggested that in certain respects it might well be in fuller form. After all, the Trading Estimate is at the very basis of the calculations which appear before and after it in this Supplementary Estimate.


The Trading Estimate, which is necessarily made in provisional form month by month, culminates in the publication of the trading accounts which are certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General and scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee.
As a trading concern, it is of course appropriate that we should publish the fullest trading accounts after the end of our financial year. These accounts are published, and they go into every possible detail. Our difficulty is that it is wholly inappropriate that a trading Ministry should expose in a trading estimate what it expects to buy, the price it expects to pay, and its debtor-creditor position. All such details, while appropriate in the final accounts, are inappropriate, indeed dangerous, if published in the Trading Estimate. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman did not make that point but I want to defend the somewhat scanty information which is found in the Trading Estimate
This Trading Estimate found its way into the published Estimates following the decision to include the reconciliation of food subsidies with cash requirements, for it supplies a calculation which is necessary to understand the reconciliation. In order to meet the points made, it may be helpful to look at some of the items included in the Trading Estimate. Of course the cost of purchases has gone down, as has the income. Last year there was a deliberate cut, necessarily undertaken, in the importation of food to this country, and that finds expression in the trading accounts of the Ministry of Food. Indeed, if it had not found its place there we should not have been playing our part.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is only the change since June that we are concerned about.

Dr. Hill: I will come to the change since June. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, many of the cuts which a Government determines to make in the field of imports cannot find expression in actual reduction of purchases and reduction of expenditure until some months after the original decision to make those cuts has been taken. It was a quite general experience during last year that a cut which was determined upon at the beginning of the year came into operation some months later; and it was so with

the trading accounts and Estimates of the Ministry of Food.
The Trading Estimate shows the cost of purchases in the top line and then the stock position, distribution expenses and subsidies paid to producers and others. These last, incidentally, are in the main subsidies paid for milling and bread baking, which are injected at the level of the miller and bread baker, and the bacon curing subsidy, injected at the level of the bacon curing factory, and they account for the item amounting to £80.9 million. Trading deficiencies are then recorded. Reconditioning of wheat is one item under this heading, and the losses incurred by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, which, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will recall, maintains autonomy, represent another. So we reach the total expenditure of the Ministry.
The trading loss of the Ministry of Food is the major element in the food subsidies, ignoring the other items to which reference has been made. So it is necessary to proceed from the trading position of the Ministry of Food to calculate the amount of its trading loss, and thereafter to add the cost of the welfare food service and the milk-in-school scheme, both non-trading items, to reach a figure of the subsidies administered by the Ministry of Food—£297 million. I think that no more need be said on the subject of reconciliation.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the relationship between the figures of the Trading Estimate and the figures in the actual Vote, Subhead H— trading services? That is the difficulty.

Dr. Hill: Under Subhead H we are dealing with cash requirements, and in the Trading Estimate we are dealing with the trading aspect. There is a reconciliation to be effected between the cash requirements and the Trading Estimate, just as there has to be a reconciliation effected between the cash requirements and the subsidy itself. We have to seek to compare like with like. They meet at the level where subsidy is determined.
I must refer to the other items which come into the Ministry's total subsidy bill because they have been dealt with in the debate. There has been an increase in services provided by other


Departments. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the rate of interest on Exchequer advances has risen and led to an increased expenditure on interest. As will be known to the Committee as a whole, various steps, legislative and others, taken by other Ministries have resulted in the inclusion of these production or agricultural subsidies in the Estimate. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made reference to that, because I feel it should be generally known what other items are included in the subsidy bill.
It is not generally realised that the ploughing-up grant comes within the total of food subsidies. I do not make any comment as to the desirability or otherwise of its being there. The right hon. Gentleman found these things there and left them there. I merely record the fact that there is a good case for regarding those subsidies as effecting a reduction in the price of food and so making unnecessary a subsidy on the end product, which would otherwise be incurred.
Having proceeded from the Trading Estimate position to calculate the subsidy, the reconciliation is arrived at. In parenthesis I might deal with the subsidy position, as the right hon. Gentleman raised a point on the answer which my right hon. and gallant Friend gave him the other day. I think I ought to read the Question in order that hon. Members of the Committee should appreciate what was asked. My right hon. and gallant Friend was asked to state
the increases in the prices of the various foods necessitated by the reduction in subsidies; when they became effective; and how much saving was achieved in each case in the financial year 1952–53."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1953; Vol. 512. c. 1807.]
My right hon. and gallant Friend, in his answer, gave the estimated savings in detail. By adding up the detailed items, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we get the figure of £112 million. But the right hon. Gentleman did not ask what were the increased procurement costs which have occurred during that period, and that is an element which comes into the subsidy calculation. It is one thing to make an estimate of saving by increasing retail prices, but it is another thing to take account of the increased procurement costs which add to the Bill. Perhaps I may give the right hon. Gentleman the figures in order to complete the story.
The increased procurement costs amounted to £48 million in that period. There was, on the other hand, a saving. In his Budget speech a year ago my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred to a proposed increase in the price of eggs. It may have escaped the notice of hon. Members that it did not happen. What happened was the continuance of a higher seasonal price for a longer period, and so there was a saving which did not come within the ambit of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, but which amounted to £15 million.
If one takes the saving of the £15 million from the £48 million, one gets a net increased cost of £33 million. If I may, I will do the calculation in a way which I find easier to understand. The £112 million brought the figure of £410 million down to £298 million as the figure of subsidy for the year. This addition of £33 million due to procurement costs less the saving on eggs—brought the subsidy expenditure for the year to £331 million.
That is the explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the figures given in the reply to the Question and the true position. Both the right hon. Member and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that we undertook to bring down subsidies by the end of the current financial year to a level of £250 million a year. It can be inferred—as the right hon. Member and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, in fact inferred—from the difference between the £331 million of subsidies in the current year and the £308.8 million, which was the estimate a year ago, that we have not, in fact, quite got down to the level of £250 million at which we aimed. The right hon. Gentleman did not complain of that; indeed, he could not complain of it.

Mr. Gaitskell: There seem to me to be two quite distinct points here. The first is the present rate at which the subsidies are now running, and I gather from what the hon. Gentleman said that they are still running above the £250 million figure. That, as he will readily see, is a different point from whether £100 million has actually been saved in the fiscal year; of course, we know it has not.

Dr. Hill: I appreciate the point. Of course, if one undertakes to begin the year with £410 million and to end it with £250 million, then the amount of


subsidy incurred during that year will be some sum between those two figures, although it might be almost anywhere between them, according to the dates on which price increase are made.
Therefore, the fact that £331 million is the figure of subsidy for this year, and not the £308.8 million as was anticipated a year ago, is not evidence, although it suggests that we may not have got our subsidy level down to the £250 million. I am not, of course, going to be more precise on this point. The Department's Estimates will be published. Although the figure has been brought down to the region of £250 million, I am not going to pretend that it has been brought down to the actual level of £250 million, though I ought, as I say, to make it clear that I am not going to be drawn into saying anything more specific on the point.

Mr. Willey: I do not propose to draw the Parliamentary Secretary at all. My recollection is that the Minister said £220 million on a fairly recent occasion.

Dr. Hill: I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing the Vote on Account of about £220 million, to which my right hon. and gallant Friend referred, with my right hon. and gallant Friend's refusal to be drawn on the issue of the rate of subsidy when the hon. Gentleman was pressing him a week or two ago.
I now come to some of the other points which have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) seized with vigour upon the sugar item. I would point out to him that the reason for this is that the export of refined sugar, which has recently been proceeding with considerable success, has fallen off in the last month or so. But purchases of dollar sugar have been made in anticipation of exports, and as a result we have for the moment 100,000 tons more sugar in stock.
I know that my hon. Friend would love to go down to history as the man who pressed his Government to deration sugar. I can assure him that when we can afford to do it we shall do it, and that there is nothing concealed here. He has not unearthed a supply of sugar which would permit derationing, although it has afforded him, with the leniency of the Chair, an opportunity of pursuing his favourite subject.

Mr. Nabarro: I hope that my hon. Friend did not misinterpret what I said. The question that I put to him was whether the significance of these figures was to be interpreted as a precursor to a position whereby we might be able to deration sooner, or whether I was being too optimistic.

Mr. Willey: Surely, even if the Parliamentary Secretary released the whole of this extra stock of 100,000 tons of sugar, the housewife would still be worse off than she was under the Labour Government.

Dr. Hill: It is clear with what melancholy the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will greet this decontrol when we find it possible.
On the various items in Subhead H to which he referred, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North sought, in a way I found difficult to grasp, to criticise us both ways on the stock position. It would seem that if we put food into stock it would be wrong and if we took it out of stock it would be wrong. I found it difficult to ascertain upon which leg of the criticism the hon. Gentleman was resting. I know, of course, that in 1950 160,000 tons of meat were taken out of stock by the last Government. All I can say on this occasion is that we are purchasing more food and that a good deal of it is going into stock. Meat is going into stock because of our obvious desire to level out the ration of meat over the year and to avoid wide and frequent variations.
One of the biggest items under Subhead H is a meat item of £10 million. This represents purchases for stock and the increased prices involved in the revision of the New Zealand and Australian agreements, and in due course it will involve increased amounts in respect of Argentine prices. Similarly with milk products, the increase is due to larger purchases.
The hon. Gentleman referred to oils and fats. He realises, no doubt, that we take the exportable surplus from West Africa. The higher Estimate results from our being required to take, at a price related to the world price, all the oils and fats offered to us.
The case of sugar I have dealt with. I cannot be sure I have answered every question—

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with some of the specific commodities, and he dealt with those two points, but in this Supplementary Estimate, as I pointed out, we are spending £82 million less on purchasing food than we estimated to spend in June. In spite of the price increases of the foodstuffs to which the hon. Gentleman called my right hon. Friend's attention, we are spending less than last year. How, then, can he tell us we are purchasing more and putting more to stock?

Dr. Hill: This Supplementary Estimate involves a comparison between the Estimate made in the middle of last year and the Estimate made today. In so far as we take exportable surpluses, as, for example, meat from Australia, then it involves higher cash expenditure. After all, the hon. Gentleman knows that the estimate for meat produced at home and imported into this country this year is that it will be the highest since the war.

Mr. Nabarro: More red meat.

Dr. Hill: That involves a good deal of importation and storage, in that case as in others, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is on the presentation of documents or earlier that we pay more. In the case of some of our imports we pay f.o.b.

Mr. Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend winds up this most interesting debate, would he please answer my question about the reduction of £1 million in the payment to the British Sugar Corporation, and say whether this is going to have any bearing on future policy in regard to the home production of sugar beet?

Dr. Hill: I did not reply to that point because any discussion of savings is out of order. My hon. Friend can count himself fortunate that he has made his point, but I have no doubt that if I sought to respond to it I should be declared out of order. In any case, I will privately give my hon. Friend the information which he seeks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why privately? "]
So there, in broad outline, is the explanation of this Supplementary Estimate, indicating that the additional cash that is required is related, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, to a slightly higher level of subsidy, though the relationship is not direct.
Perhaps, before I sit down, I should deal with one point that comes to my mind in that connection. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fall in cash requirements as revealed by the Vote on Account for next year. He will appreciate that the decision to decontrol cereals, animal feedingstuffs and eggs— certainly decontrol of cereals and animal feedingstuffs—and flour involves a beginning of an unloading of the stocks that are held by the Ministry. The fall in stocks has begun. The trade will shortly be purchasing on their own account. I hope that at this stage the right hon. Gentleman will not press me for further details. The general explanation of that fall in cash requirements by the Minister is his own departure from these three fields, and the disposal of the stocks that he has held, in a steady disgorgement, as it were.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I am sorry to rise now after my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has finished. However, I did rise before he was called, but was not myself called; and I understand that this is one of those occasions when back benchers have the right and the duty to ask questions about the spending of public money. It is a right and a duty that is tending to fall more and more into abeyance. With huge Budgets coming before us year by year I think we have an increasing duty to look carefully into the way the money is being spent.
Under Subhead H, Trading Services, there are one or two items about which I should like some information. For oils and fats the amount required has increased from £7,400,000 to £15 million. My hon. Friend said, in his first speech, that this was due largely to higher world prices. I have read elsewhere and am under the impression that the world shortage of fats has just about ended, and if that be so, I should think that the tendency would be for world prices to fall. What I should like to know is what higher percentage have we had to pay for oils and fats that requires this increase from £7,400,000 to £15 million? Can my hon. Friend say something as to the future? Are we going to be paying still higher prices although world shortages seem to have come to an end?
Again, in the Vote on Account there is an item called "Miscellaneous." So


far as I can remember, no one has asked any question about that at all. There was to have been a credit item of £8 million. Now it is down to a credit item of £4,500,000; that is, the position has deteriorated by £3½ million. On a total Estimate of about £300 million, I will agree that £3½ million may seem petty cash, but it is petty cash that the taxpayers have to find, and I wonder whether we could be told about that. I should like to know what is included in that "Miscellaneous" item. As to these trading services, it is difficult to judge each item without knowing the quantities which are involved. Where large amounts are being spent we cannot judge whether they are being spent wisely or not without knowing the quantities which are involved.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend a couple of questions on items in the Appendix. There is there an item of £101.9 million in which are bulked together "Distribution, &c."—I do not know what "&c." means—as expenses including "processing charges, storage, carriage, agents' remuneration, &c." In a normal business no director or shareholder would allow such a large item as £101.9 million to go through without knowing more about it. I should like to see that broken down. If food is being processed, then it is part of the real purchase price of the food. I want to know how much is being charged for distribution, because I believe that, generally speaking, we as a nation are paying too much for distribution costs, both in money and manpower, over the whole of our economy.
My hon. Friend looks at me rather askance for asking these questions, but I want to know whether we are paying too much for distribution costs. Also, I want to know what the "etceteras" include. Is my hon. Friend looking as keenly at these costs as—and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) reminded him and all of us on this side of the Committee—we promised before the Election we would do? Are we as keen on economy now we are in office as we were when we were in Opposition? This £101.9 million on total costs of £1,546.6 million is about 7 per cent.
I ask, is there any waste in that? Can we have these items broken down? I

should not like to pass, in any business where I had any control, any item as proportionately big as this without knowing more about it. We are the guardians of the taxpayer. In a month's time we shall all be standing here and demanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall reduce taxes, or that he shall give more to our people. This is the occasion to get down to a problem like this.
Next, I want to ask my hon. Friend about the administrative expenses, including the expenses of regional and local food offices of £14.8 million. There is in the country a good deal of grumbling about the expensive way in which certain Government offices are run, and in the past a lot has been said about that by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Is my hon. Friend sure that from that administrative expense item of nearly £15 million, which is a lot of money when the taxpayer has got to find it, nothing could be cut out? Can he say anything at all about the possibility of reducing it in the future?
I am sorry that I was not fortunate enough to catch your eye, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, before my hon. Friend spoke. Those are some of the questions I wanted to ask. There are a lot more that I would have asked had I caught your eye before, but if my hon. Friend could give me answers to those I have asked I should be grateful.

5.52 p.m.

Dr. Hill: Perhaps I might briefly answer the questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has put to me. He referred, under Subhead H, to the increased expenditure on oils and fats. What has happened is that comparatively recently the world price, after falling, has risen again. That has resulted in a speedy and substantial dispatch of oils and fats from West Africa to this country. We have undertaken to buy the exportable surplus. Accordingly, we estimate an increased expenditure under that heading.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked for a greater break-up under the heading of trading estimates. I recommend to my hon. Friend that he reads the trading accounts and balance sheets in which all the items are exhaustively described,


analysed and examined by the Public Accounts Committee and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General after the end of the financial year, just as in the case of the companies to which he referred. This is a trading estimate, and just as he would not, in his company accounts during the financial year in question, give a host of details—indeed, he would not publish any trading estimate during the year—so this trading estimate is necessarily meagre in detail. Its express purpose, as I have argued, is to make the reconciliation statement on the last page understandable.
Next, he asked me about the miscellaneous items. The increase is mainly due to higher estimated stocks of dried fruit and rice, partly off-set by lower stocks of starch; decreased distribution of canned fruit, coffee and starch; and a modest deficit on the disposal of Moroccan sardines abroad.

Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend said that the increase in the amount required for oils and fats was due to the fact that there had recently been a rise in world prices and we have had to take the total surplus from West Africa. Do I understand from that that the people in West Africa held up their stocks until world prices increased?

Dr. Hill: My hon. Friend perhaps knows that the world price is determined by a very complicated calculation on the basis of prices quoted in a London publication—I believe "The Ledger." The world price is calculated in London, and if the producers of West Africa, knowing that we have agreed to take their surplus, acquire a greater zeal and enthusiasm to send their stuff here when the price is rather high, that would be an illustration of human nature which my hon. Friend and I fully understand.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,899,350, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services, including certain subsidies; a grant in aid; and sundry other services, including certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

CLASS II

VOTE 2. FOREIGN OFFICE GRANTS AND SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,715,510, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for sundry expenses connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service; special grants, including grants in aid; and various other services.

JORDAN AND YUGOSLAVIA (ASSISTANCE)

5.56 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): There are just a few words I should like to say to the Committee on this Supplementary Estimate. The savings, it will be observed, are £1,660,000, and it would not be proper for me to deal with them. There is a short-fall in receipts of £1,343,000. That is simply due to the fact that certain moneys which were expected to be received before the end of this year in respect of currency in Libya will not be received before the end of this year, but will, in fact, be received next year.
Of the excess in expenditure, amounting to over £4 million, the largest item relates to Yugoslavia. That is not an over-spending, because there was a token estimate of £10 in June and it was foreseen that there would be a Supplementary Estimate to deal with this matter. Of the £2,800,000, about £600,000 represents money that was not spent last year out of Estimates then approved, so to that extent it is a re-vote. The balance of £2¼ million is half the amount decided upon by Her Majesty's Government last October to be given by way of economic assistance to Yugoslavia.
The Committee is aware that there was a tripartite conference at which the United States, France and ourselves were present, and it was decided that over the 12 months ending June, 1953, assistance to Yugoslavia should be given to the following amounts: United States of America, 78 million dollars; United Kingdom, £4½ million; France, the equivalent of £3 million. The figure of £2¼ million in these Supplementary Estimates represents half that figure of £4½ million. Those moneys are to be spent in giving economic help to Yugoslavia, which, in


the view of Her Majesty's Government, it is very necessary to give at the present time.
The next item in size relates to the loan to Jordan. This, again, is for money which was voted for 1951–52, but not spent in that year. It also is a re-vote. It is part of the £1,500,000 loan for development in Jordan which is to be repaid over 15 years, starting in 1959. Those moneys will be spent in connection with a railway project, an airport, irrigation and development projects. None of it will be spent in connection with the refugees now in Jordan. It is for normal development projects.
The next item is £400,000 for reimbursement of Purchase Tax. That is the reimbursement of Purchase Tax on goods bought in the United Kingdom by nationals of other countries. Since 1949, I think it is, this has been the practice, and it does constitute good business for this country. There have been more sales than expected of British goods to these foreign nationals in the United Kingdom, and that is why the amount to be reimbursed by way of Purchase Tax has been increased.
The only other item on which I want to say anything is that of £213,000 for Libyan currency. This, again, is a re-vote. It is money which was provided last year to buy in the currency in circulation, and of the £750,000 voted last year this sum of £213,000 was not expended in that year. It has been spent in this year and has to be re-voted. It does not amount to an unexpected item of expenditure. That is all that I wish to say at this stage with regard to the Supplementary Estimate.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hector McNeil: I do not propose to detain the House for long. I am sure that I am speaking for both sides of the House when I say that we very much appreciate the need for this item relating to Yugoslavia. Those of us who have had any experience of that country will be fairly confident that this sum will be prudently applied. Quite remarkable, in the years immediately following the war, is the degree of improvement that Yugoslavia has demonstrated, and anyone associated with U.N.R.R.A. will remember how beneficially she

applied the funds allocated under that scheme. The political climate does not permit her to apply more of her own finances to economic development at this time.
I would like to say just a word about item D—Financial Assistance to Jordan (Grant-in-Aid). The right hon. and learned Gentleman explained that there were three schemes, and he added that these, of course, were not concerned with the refugee problem. I quite understand that, but perhaps he will permit me to put to him three points very briefly.
We know that the two great burdens which Jordan has at present to carry arise from defence and from the problem of refugees. I do not propose to discuss these matters at length, because I am sure that the House will have to devote a large part of its time in the near future to debating Middle East defence and the question of refugees. I understand that there is anxiety on both sides of the House that time should be found to debate these subjects, and I hope that the Government will be able to afford that facility.
Although it may be literally true that none of these three schemes relate directly to the problem of refugees, it would be financially imprudent to consider any funds to be applied to economic development in the Kindom of Jordan unless related to the refugee problem. I am sure that most Members of the Committee will be familiar with the size of this problem. It is probably true that there are about 500,000 Arab refugees in a country the population of which was previously about 1½ million. Anyone attempting to consider the economic problems of that country or the application of funds for its economic development could not think of the subject at all without putting a huge question mark against this problem of 500,000 refugees.
I would not want anything that I have said to be interpreted as meaning that the United Nations in its various projects, Her Majesty's Government or the Jordan Government have been ungenerous in their handling of this problem. Indeed, it ought to be said in fairness that if all the countries had been as generous as Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Kingdom of Jordan the position might have been advanced a good deal.
With the best will in the world, everyone must admit that the ambulance service providing relief work will make no real contribution to this economic drain upon Jordan, constituted by the presence of these refugees. Compassion and the complexity of the situation always drive people towards relief of that kind. There is inevitably the inertia of the refugees themselves. They do not want to be dispossessed and there is a kind of unity in their misery. There is a reluctance to forfeit such political claims as they think they may have and that, of course, is true in the Jordan Valley.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether, in the continuance of this economic assistance, Her Majesty's Government have discussed with the Government of Jordan what methods should be used to ensure that some proportion of these refugees is related to the eventual development. I do not mean only their partial employment, although that may be desirable. But can he tell us if the Government of Jordan anticipate that they will be able to resettle or, more properly, to integrate them into the subsequent employment that should arise from at least two of these schemes?
Will he tell us firmly, in the same context, whether the five-year plan, upon which a brief announcement was made by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 9th March, moves in continuation of this programme. It is a fairly optimistic anticipation that in five years' time the Government of Jordan will be able to produce a balanced budget. It is a very optimistic conclusion, in view of these two problems to which I have alluded, that they should have a balanced budget in that time. I should, no doubt, be out of order if I pursued that matter, and I do not want to pursue it, but I want, if possible, the right hon. and learned Gentleman to assure us that these two programmes are linked and that some provision is being made—not a hope, but some systematic attempt—to absorb, integrate and resettle refugees inside that development.
Finally, I would ask him whether, inside this programme for which we are at present devoting an additional £450,000, and inside the continuance of this programme, which I would loosely call the five-year programme, once more the resources of the United Nations are being

utilised both in response to construction and in respect of the problem of the refugees.
In all countries there is a great claim upon expert opinion—engineering, agricultural, hydrostatic, and so forth—but the United Nations have been slowly coordinating a substantial reservoir of experienced technicians, and this money will not be as prudently and wisely applied as it might be if we do not ensure that these resources are being used and allied to these programmes. With these reservations, that we should ensure that these and subsequent funds are prudently employed in development in the Kingdom of Jordan and that the money is related to the massive problem of the refugees, we support this Supplementary Estimate.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I am grateful to have the opportunity to follow up one or two of the questions which my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) was raising about Jordan on this item of £450,000. It is an item which we ought to discuss in some detail, for this reason. In the whole of the Arab Middle East, Jordan is the only area—and it is quite a small area—where we can even pretend that there is a population friendly to this country. There is no other part of the Arab world where one can feel that the country is pro-British. Therefore, whether it is possible to keep our foothold there is a matter of major importance.
I should like to tell the Minister that I was very struck, when I was there this winter, by the contrast between the situation in Jordan in 1953 and the situation two years ago. I think he will agree that the situation is far worse today than it was two years ago, and it was far worse two years ago than it was two years before that. We have had a steady deterioration in the economic and social situation in Jordan and in the chances of pacification.
We are discussing this loan in the knowledge that despite what we have done in the past, the situation is getting steadily worse. We are not dealing directly with the question of refugees today, because the financing of the refugees is a matter for U.N.R.R.A., but I must point out


that the effect of having in the country 470,000 refugees on the ration strength of U.N.R.R.A. and another 130,000 who have been "integrated," into the community has been a steady decline in wage rates. One of the things I discovered was the utterly deplorable effect on the economy of Jordan of the burden of the refugees.

The Temporary Chairman(Colonel Gomme-Duncan): I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the question of the £450,000. The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) went a little wide himself, but I let him go on. We cannot discuss the question of refugees. It is in order for the hon. Member to say how the loan should be related to the problem, but we cannot discuss the problem itself.

Mr. Crossman: With respect, I was discussing the problem of refugees but I was trying to show how the presence of refugees made the case for development more urgent. It is vital to understand how the development of Jordan has been ruined and retarded by the pressure of the refugees.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may do that, but he cannot discuss the question of refugees further.

Mr. Crossman: I do not want to discuss the question of refugees. I want to discuss the situation of the non-refugee population. I think it would be in order to discuss the economic situation of the non-refugee population whose wage rates have been driven down. I have discovered that wage rates in Jordan this year are much lower than they were two years ago. The reason is the vast amount of refugee labour available which is subsidised by exterior funds, and which, therefore, depresses wage rates of those who are not refugees. I did not find anybody there this year who did not agree that the situation was markedly worse. If one talks to the British, the Arabs and the technical aid people there, they all agree that, despite the millions which are being poured in, there is a steady deterioration.
I should like to concentrate on the situation west of the Jordan, because that is where the British Development Loan is mainly concentrated, on the agricultural side. That is where the £450,000

is to be spent, I gather. West of the Jordan there is what was left of Palestine jammed in between Israel and the rest. It is, today, a pool of despair. Here we have a group of Arabs—largely Christian Arabs—who are now in a Moslem State, and who were in a favoured position under the British because they were mostly civil servants under the Mandate.
It is in this area west of the Jordan that the most violent hatred of Israel is to be found. It is here where all the incidents that we hear of occur. Despite all the economic development that we hear of, the only development that I found was the development of the National Guard, consisting of people with rifles who cross the frontier, get what they can in the way of cattle and visit their people in Gaza. We want to know what the Minister thinks should be done for the miserable people who are packed in that area. I suggest that we must reach the conclusion that peace is out of the question in Jordan unless we can get economic development on a far greater scale than anything implied in this loan or in the four-year plan.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend point out that we ought not to talk too much about resettlement. Resettlement is a matter for U.N.R.R.A. We are concerned here with economic development. One of the things I discovered in Jordan was that if one talks about resettling the Arabs it makes resettlement impossible. I visited, in the Jordan Valley, a village which had been built by the Jordan Government with U.N.R.R.A money for resettling refugees. It was three-quarters empty because it was meant for resettling refugees, whereas if it had been built for the development of the country and no one had talked a great deal about resettlement, the people might have gone there.
Therefore, I am glad that Her Majesty's Government have decided to go ahead with the economic development of the country without attaching to it the notion of resettling refugees. The very word "resettlement" creates a psychological phobia which makes the very thing we want impossible to achieve It is extremely important that we should be aware of the vital importance not only to this country but to our whole position in the Middle East of maintaining that


economic development in Jordan. There is there a population of something over 1 million people, half of them refugees. They are in a country with no natural resources, so far as I can see.
I ask the Minister why it is that in the course of our redevelopment we have left the Palestine potash plant at the north end of the Dead Sea in a state of total destruction. Is there to be no effort to restore the potash trade? The Jews are busily restoring it at Sodom at the south end, but I should like to know what is being done at the north end where the plant is in Arab hands, because potash is one of the few things with which Jordan could hope to earn a living.
I want to ask a question about tourism. I spoke to the British Ambassador and was told that tourism was a matter for U.N.R.R.A. and technical assistance because we were concerned only with the economic development of the country. This puzzled me a great deal because of all the resources that Jordan has, natural beauty and ancient buildings are the main ones. In fact, one way in which the country could earn foreign exchange would be by developing the tourist trade. There are not only the old City of Jerusalem, but the Roman towns of Jerash and Petra; there are many things and much natural beauty for tourists to see if they could get there to see them.
I should like to ask the Minister to consider devoting more of the British money that we are sending to Jordan to develop the tourist industry there. I gather that the railway to which the Minister of State referred is of military importance, but I do not think that anyone who called at Aquaba would want to go back as a tourist because of the temperature; but in the uplands it is different, and if there were reasonable roads and hotel accommodation it would vastly increase the tourist traffic to that area. It seems to be a pity to leave out tourism and say that it is not part of the economic development of the country.
But the basic economic development must be the expansion of the cultivable area. If this country is to earn its own living it must grow more food, and that food can only be grown under the most difficult conditions. I want to ask a question about the Yarmuk river scheme.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are dealing with a sum of £450,000 and we must, as far as possible, stick to what is to be done with that money, because that is the only Estimate that we are considering.

Mr. Crossman: With great respect, we were told by the Minister that this money is being devoted to the economic development of Jordan, and I am asking the Minister questions about whether he is using the fund for this purpose or for that. Surely questions about irrigation are in order because part of the money could be used for the Yarmuk river scheme, which is a plan for increasing the irrigated area.

The Temporary Chairman: I am well aware of that, but the point is that we are dealing with only £450,000. It is quite in order to touch upon the future prospects, but it is not in order to deal at length with the subject because it would cost more than the £450,000 under consideration.

Mr. McNeil: With great respect, particularly since I have had the indulgence of the Chair, might I say that we have no control over how these funds may be applied by Jordan. We shall have no further opportunity of discovering in detail how the funds are applied, and I would respectfully suggest it would be quite in order for my hon. Friend now to pursue what is, at any rate, a germane matter.

The Temporary Chairman: I have already given the hon. Gentleman full licence, as I did the right hon. Gentleman, but I must insist that he does not go into great projects which obviously will cost a great deal more, although he may touch on them as to the future policy, which he has already done.

Mr. Crossman: I hardly got the opportunity of touching upon the subject before I was told I was out of order. I will deal with the road leading towards the Yarmuk to build which part of this money was spent. I should like to know whether beyond the building of the road it is proposed to devote funds to the Yarmuk scheme, because that scheme will provide 120,000 people with farms if it is completed.
I will now turn to the small scale schemes west of the Jordan to which the


Minister indirectly referred. I think you have got to combine in Jordan large-scale operations like the Yarmuk river with small scale help that will assist the Arabs. I warmly congratulate the Minister on the work that is done west of the Jordan by one very notable British expert. I spent a day with him. I believe that under the Mandate he was one of the country's agricultural experts. I saw what he was doing for various small farmers. He was using these funds to do it, and I can tell the Minister that the money has been well spent among the Arabs west of the Jordan. It is being spent by a man who really knows the country and who knows the villages.
The Arabs of Jordan are well aware that if money gets into hands without British control it will not always be as well spent as if it were under British control. I should like to urge upon the Minister that these small operations should be combined with big things like the River Yarmuk scheme. This continuation will do something to improve not only the economic conditions of Sudan, but what relations we have with the other Arab countries.
There is one other thing which I want to ask about, and it is something which is worrying most of us. We are spending £9 million a year on the Arab Legion, and we are only spending £1½ million on economic development. I cannot help feeling on this—and I found perhaps to my surprise that British officers attached to the Arab Legion agreed with me—that unless considerable more economic development is done in Jordan the money spent on the Legion will be wasted. What is the use of making a crack division in that area if the economic and social conditions are so bad that the Legion has to be used to police the area and hold it down?
Jordan is a police State today. In addition to the Legion there are no fewer than 3,500 policemen, and in my opinion there is virtually no genuine political liberty. There are one or two parties, but there is no real liberty. I do not blame the Government of Jordan for doing that with economic and social conditions as they are, but I cannot help asking myself whether it is in the best interests of the economic development of the country to distribute the funds on a

ratio of nine for military needs and one to avoid complete starvation. One may believe in military strength, but when it comes to nine to one on guns against butter we should not be surprised if the country turns more and more to Communism.
An Arab friend of mine who was a schoolmaster told me only a few weeks ago that he gave a lecture on Communism to his class of boys. At the end of it he asked were there any questions and the eldest boy got up and said, "Well, Sir, I should like to know if Communism is so bad why are all our fathers for it? "The Arab said to me that this gave him rather a start, because it made him realise what had happened in the last two years. There was not a Communist to be found in Jordan two years ago. The proportion that we are giving to the Arab Legion and to the economic development of the country is affecting the population adversely from every point of view.
Every time one goes from Israel to Jordan one goes from an area of hope to an area of utter despair. That is the real contrast between Israel and Jordan. However hard up they are, however impossible their economic situation seems to be, there is always hope in Israel as well as activity and energy. It is not only because the Jews are energetic. It is because there is a flow of investment into Israel, because the people are being provided with the tools to develop their country.
If Jordan were given today the opportunity by Britain on the same scale as the capital investment of the Jews is giving to their people in Israel, then that country might be a great deal more cheerful place, and, incidentally, there might be the chance of reconciliation between the two sides of what is undoubtedly an iron curtain.
Let no one under-rate the hatred and suspicion which divide the Arab world from Israel today. We have a chance, with these development funds in this one corner, to provide for economic development, and it will be a test of our Middle Eastern policy. I urge the Minister to reconsider whether he should not increase the allocations for economic aid to this small Arab country. I ask him to make this a pilot scheme, and whether we will try to give this one Arab country a chance


of getting above the destitution level— because that is where it is now.
Let us take this small country of Jordan, where there is some British influence and British power, and by putting one-twentieth of the energy into the development of its very scanty national resources that the Jews put into the development of Israel, help it to a new period of prosperity. By so doing we would not only help the Arabs but ourselves as well, because we would be creating the conditions in which Arab and Jew might possibly come together. They will never come together as long as we regard Jordan as a place from which we can get one division of troops, and for which we pay £9 million as against £1 million to keep the people from starving.
We ourselves will have to achieve a new attitude. If we continue with just this £1 million for economic aid the money we are spending on the Legion will be useless, because the people will turn against us and there will be no peace between Arab and Jew. Then the Middle East would be lost to the Western world. Is it not worth a practical effort to make a better show in this one area where we do have some influence, and do something to convince the Arab that we do not consider him as part of our strategy and nothing but that? Treat him as a human being and give him a chance to earn his living. We have done a fairly good job in Jordan with the miserable amounts we have been able to afford. I urge that vastly greater sums should go in, or else that we should give up and get out. The worst thing to do is to stay, while giving insufficient money to make the help really effective.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I wish to say a word about this £450,000 to be spent on Jordan. Jordan is the most friendly of all the Arab countries, but her people have not forgotten what has happened in recent years in connection with the creation of the Israel State. They feel just as strongly about that as do other Arabs, although they are a little more balanced.
I entirely agree that it is time to look into this matter and see that our money is well spent and whether we should not do better by spending more. Israel has large American funds behind her, but

when we look at the balance of payments of Israel we see that it is rather poor. The proportions are about the same as they are for Jordan, despite the very large sums of money received by Israel in American remittances. Jordan has only our miserable sums to help her.
The problem of refugees makes matters worse. I cannot discuss that here, but I agree that the problem might be solved, at least in part, by the economic development of Jordan. This is a very difficult country to develop because a large part of it is semi-desert, but there is another area which can be irrigated. In 1946 I was in the plains of Jericho. The Arabs took me over some very fine banana farms which were irrigated from the Jordan. Further extension of that kind of thing could be made, particularly in the drier country in the hills beyond, towards the desert. I was there long ago, in the days of the Ottoman Empire. I rode on horseback from Damascus to Jericho and I remember the kind of country it was. Even under modern conditions I believe that it could be very much developed by dry farming and the improvement of livestock.
If this sum of £450,000 is to be spent on that kind of thing, it will be very useful, but it is not enough. I should like the Minister of State to tell us where the money goes. I was not here for the whole of his speech. I came in just as he was finishing, so I cannot ask him to repeat it. I am sure that the Committee would like to know more details of this expenditure. Education is wanted first and foremost in a country like Jordan, where a large proportion of the population is illiterate, in order to pluck the fruits of economic development. First of all primary and then technical education is what all the backward countries need more than anything else. I should like to know more about what is being done in that respect.
Another item on the Vote, which arouses no controversial feelings at all, is the additional sum of £2,840,000 for the assistance of Yugoslavia. It is very appropriate on this occasion, when Marshal Tito is visiting this country, that we should be discussing this Vote, and it will be generally welcomed. Yugoslavia has shown immense strength of character, which is typical of the Yugoslavs. I was in that country very soon


after the war, in 1946, when U.N.R.R.A. was working there after a very serious drought. The whole country was devastated by a drought.
Yugoslavia is liable to suffer from this and only modern methods of agriculture can deal with it by dry farming and irrigation, which require capital. When I was there, relations between Yugoslavia and Russia were still friendly, and the Yugoslavs were looking for assistance from Russia to aid them in this development. We all know that Yugoslavia has shown great courage. Not only was it dangerous to her politically to break off from Russia, but economically, because she was immediately cut off from all assistance from the North-East.
In view of the general political set-up in the East Mediterranean and in Eastern Europe, it is vital that we should give all the economic assistance we can to Yugoslavia because of the deficiency caused by the events of recent years. I am glad we are continuing this assistance. I see that the purpose is put down here as:
obtaining raw materials, consumer goods"—
possibly that is to help the upland districts, where the grain crop has failed—
and other essential supplies and services.
Anything that can help that country, whose people are of sterling character and have a strong feeling of independence, should be done. They have shown this sterling independence over the greater part of a century, in the early days of which they were struggling against the Ottoman Empire. Any help we give them today is money well spent for the political stability of Europe.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. R. Brooman-White: I want to follow up only one point in the remarks of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), in which he touched upon the guidance which had been given in Jordan on the expenditure of our funds there by a British expert with great local knowledge. There will be general agreement among those who know the Middle East that enormous advantages have been gained in the economic development of these regions by the presence of expert advisers which this country has maintained there. In any further expenditure for the development of those areas it would be false

economy to limit the activities of those experts; indeed, one of the best possible ways in which the money could be spent is in furthering the activities of these men and continuing the tradition which was built up by the work of the B.M.E.O.
We should do all we can to make available the services of these men who have working-level, technical knowledge of the agricultural, livestock and other problems of countries such as Jordan and the other Middle Eastern nations. I hope that great weight will be given to this aspect of the question.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: May I begin by expressing my thanks for the welcome given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price)? I agree entirely with what both said. Most of our discussion, however, has been on the country of Jordan, and the fact that we should have discussed its development here shows our feelings of good will and friendship—indeed, I would say our admiration for the efforts made by the Government and people of Jordan under conditions of almost appalling difficulty.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we might at some other time have a much wider debate on the refugees from Israel. I will pass on that suggestion, but I say, quite frankly, that I am not sure that it would be of benefit. I am not sure that one of the troubles has not been that this problem has been openly debated too often. I know that in the House of Commons we would not get ourselves into the same position as we got into at the United Nations in New York, when the two opposing parties were there. I agree with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that it is better to go on with the economic development of Jordan and not seek formally to link up with other more controversial matters.
I was asked a good many questions and I am not sure to what extent all of them are in order. With the permission of the Chair, I will try to give some answers. I agree that conditions have deteriorated since 1951. One of the reasons for that was the drought in that area which was a disaster for the country. However, I


think this programme, and other matters which I hope will come into other programmes, will do a good deal to help.
First, with regard to the position of the Arabs west of the Jordan. Of this money, £190,000 is to go directly to the rehabilitation of that area. I agree that tourism is important, because of the opportunity it gives the country to increase its earnings. Of this money, £200,000 goes for the airport at Jerusalem, which should be of great benefit to tourism. In addition, £75,000 last year and £50,000 this year of this money will go towards helping to provide facilities of benefit to tourists.
So far as the Yarmuk scheme is concerned, £75,000 has already been spent on the survey for that, but it is a much larger scheme than can come within the limits of this programme. However, it is an extremely important one which should be undertaken, and we certainly hope that it will be.
Those are the answers to specific questions. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into the wider matter of the relation between the contributions to the Arab Legion and to development, but I can assure the Committee that we realise the importance of capital investment in this country and we realise that it is one with which we have firm ties of friendship. We will certainly do all we can, having regard to our own economic circumstances, to press on with the various development plans. Quite a lot of money is to be invested in Jordan, a good deal more than this programme, and it is our earnest hope that it will bring a higher standard of living and a measure of relief to a people who have been very sorely tried.

Mr. Crossman: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, could he tell us anything about the potash plant?

Mr. Lloyd: I prefer not to say anything about the potash plant upon this occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,715,510, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for sundry expenses connected with Her Majesty's Foreign Service; special grants, including grants in aid; and various other services.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1952–53

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations including contributions and a contribution towards certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.

DEFENCE

6.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): We are asking for the modest sum of £10 because this token sum is the means of disclosing to the Committee certain relatively substantial changes that have taken place in the Estimates.
All these changes relate to our obligations under our various international defence commitments. From the nature of many of these commitments, it is difficult to estimate accurately the money we spend on them. The N.A.T.O. structure of military agencies and commands is developing all the time. Certain headquarters and posts, for which we are now asking for provision, did not exist when the original Estimates were drawn up. Thus, in the case of infra-structure, where the major change has taken place, the work is mainly carried out on the Continent of Europe by contractors of the nations concerned, and many of those schemes are fairly long-term ones which take some years to complete. Obviously we have no direct control over the way the work goes. What happens is that the host nation pays the bill in the first instance, and its cost is then allocated between the contributing partners. It is not easy to tell what bills will come in in any one year.
Perhaps it would help the Committee if I said a few words about the actual subheads. Subhead A.4 relates to the appointment of a Deputy Chief of Staff to General Mark Clark's headquarters, and also to certain additional expenses incurred owing to the expansion of the activities of the Standing Group. Subhead B.1 relates to certain new appointments. For example, there is now a British Standing Group liaison officer in


Paris, and we have filled certain posts in the N.A.T.O. Defence College. Another obligation not foreseen at the time is the appointment of a small military delegation led by Air Vice-Marshal Merer to the Interim Commission which is now considering in Paris the E.D.C. treaty and the E.D.C. military set-up.
Subhead B.2, in which we ask for an additional £250,000 is the largest item. In the original Estimates, provision was made for 1,550 military personnel for the various N.A.T.O. command headquarters. The number has now gone up to about 2,000. This is due not only to the build-up of existing headquarters, but to the setting up of certain new headquarters: for example, the headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, and the headquarters of Admiral Mountbatten as Allied Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean.
It may interest the Committee to know that on the average this country supplies about 20 per cent. of the staff of the various N.A.T.O. headquarters. Next year, the number of United Kingdom military personnel at these headquarters will be about 2,150. We can say that the expansion is more or less coming to an end. We are now near the top of this expansion of the number of men that we have had to send to these various headquarters.
As regards infrastructure, the story is fairly fully set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Defence White Paper. As paragraph 15 states, there have been certain difficulties over the third slice of infrastructure. It was agreed at Lisbon that our share of £20 million should be largely furnished in kind owing to our balance of payments difficulties. It is not very easy to work out exactly what we are to supply in kind, and there have been certain delays in effecting this payment. That is why the Estimate is lower this year than was originally intended.
The only other item in the Estimate is the reduction in the appropriations-in-aid. That is due to this fact: there are certain—not very many infrastructure projects which we are carrying out in this country, almost all of them being telecommunications installations of various sorts. When the Estimates were originally made up it was assumed that we would get four quarterly payments in the

financial year. It now appears likely that we shall not get the fourth payment before the end of the financial year; and, therefore, this adjustment in the Estimates has been required. The balance of all these items adds up to only £10 on the wrong side, and as I have said, it is mainly a means of telling the House what has been going on.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: A matter of £10 between the Government and the Opposition is a matter of little consequence but, unfortunately, there is a great deal more involved in this Supplementary Estimate. I remind the Committee, although I do not propose to transgress the rules, that recently we had what was called a defence debate, when we seemed to discuss almost everything but defence.

Mr. Birch: That was not my fault.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman says that it was not his fault. I agree, but we can apportion blame when necessary and, of course, in the right quarter.
In that debate the Prime Minister dealt for the most part with the subject of National Service. I certainly made no complaint about that. It was a subject that I had sought to ventilate on several occasions. I do not propose to discuss it in the course of the Committee's proceedings—I recognise that it would be quite out of order; I wish it were in order, because I should like to say a great deal about it, but obviously I cannot.
For the rest of the defence debate, we discussed matters which seemed to me to come more within the ambit of a foreign policy debate than a debate on defence. Indeed, we seem to know very little about what is going on in the sphere of developments. And now the Parliamentary Secretary comes to the Committee and asks us to agree to a Supplementary Estimate and talks at large about personnel and an increase in personnel, and informs us gravely that he hopes it will stop before very long. In my view, it ought to have stopped a long time ago.
To take an example, we have the reference to the British Joint Services Mission at Washington. When I occupied the position of Minister of Defence, as, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman by now


has discovered, I sought to reduce the personnel at Washington. In my judgment and in the judgment of my military advisers at the time, there were far too many high-ranking officers at Washington. It was thought that with the advent of Sir William Elliot, who was sent out there to take charge, we might be able to dispense with the services of some of those who had been previously appointed.
I discover now, however, that, although there is no reference to names, the expenditure has been increasing all the while. Obviously, an increase in expenditure can only be accounted for either by increase in salaries of the old personnel—and I do not suppose that that is permissible—or by an increase in the number of staff. I should like to know the reason for that.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, in dealing with this matter, did not furnish some details of the nature of the staff, the numbers of the staff, what their work is, and whether they are doing any useful service at all. Perhaps he will take the opportunity at a later stage, as he can if he wishes, to acquaint the Committee with some of the facts relating to the British Joint Services Mission at Washington.
Now, I come to a point of real substance; that is, the ever-increasing expenditure at N.A.T.O. headquarters. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman passed so lightly over the increase in the personnel. He gave the previous figure as 1,550. It has gone up to 2,000, and he says it is going up still further, although he hopes that after it has gone up a little further it will then stop. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the Committee what it is all for? If what we are doing at N.A.T.O. headquarters is to produce a top-heavy staff, a grandiose military organisation, very largely provided by American personnel, it is true—as the hon. Gentleman said, our contribution is 20 per cent. of the whole—I should like to know whether this is really necessary.
I saw in the "New York Herald-Tribune" this week, an article by a well-known contributor to that newspaper on a statement made by the Supreme Commander, General Ridgway. I cannot read the whole of it, but I can direct attention to one item. The writer refers

to the 50 divisions which were in contemplation when the Lisbon Conference was held nearly two years ago. Whether those 50 divisions are in existence is a matter for speculation. My view is that they do not exist and that the number is much smaller.
What General Ridgway now informs us is that the equipment is not available for the 50 divisions. That is a very serious state of affairs. I am not going into the subject of equipment, but what we are faced with is that we are creating a huge organisation of high-ranking officers from various N.A.T.O. countries, including our own—and we are concerned in this Supplementary Estimate with a contribution from the United Kingdom and a large number of subsidiary elements. Obviously, we must have the subsidiary elements when we have the high-ranking personnel at N.A.T.O. headquarters, but meanwhile we have neither the divisions nor the equipment.
I ask the hon. Gentleman when we are going to inject some real defence into this set-up. We had a great deal of criticism from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when we were on their side of the House. They were always telling us that we were dragging our feet, lagging behind, that we were much too slow and ought to get out of the way to make room for these gentlemen of remarkable military competence. Now we discover that General Ridgway, after nearly two years experience as Supreme Commander following General Eisenhower, has neither the available divisions nor the available equipment. He has a huge personnel but what we want to know is what they are doing. Are they worth the money we are paying?

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he did not fix the establishment of these headquarters when he was the Minister?

Mr. Shinwell: I am only too glad to respond to this question—I am glad to inform the Committee—presumably it is in order, Mr. Hopkin Morris, at least I hope so—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The right hon. Gentleman is going a little wide.

Mr. Shinwell: I was merely endeavouring to reply to the question. All I would say is that the original establishment was fixed by the United States, which usually fixes most things. Then we came in behind. We had very few at the beginning, and of course had to add to our numbers to keep our end up. But the Americans are very lavish in expenditure of personnel—far too lavish. We naturally had to pull our weight. That is why our expenditure is going up, and the time has come to cry a halt and say to General Ridgway and his associates at N.A.T.O. headquarters that we are spending far too much money on personnel and—this may not be agreeable to everyone in the Committee—far too little on the essential equipment which is necessary and has to be injected into the defence structure.
I wish to come to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the question of infrastructure, which I am glad he raised. I am highly amused when any reference is made to infrastructure—

Mr. Birch: There is nothing funny about it

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman says, "There is nothing funny about it." He is unable, apparently, to recall what the Prime Minister said when I first mentioned infrastructure from the opposite side of the House. The Prime Minister, although he has an enlarged and enriched vocabulary, was apparently unacquainted with the word "infrastructure." I had to tell him what it meant and after I had told him he was still bewildered. By this time he has discovered what infrastructure means.
Everyone knows that it simply means the administrative elements that are associated with defence—airfields, communications and the like. This aspect, of course, costs a great deal of money. I confess at once that when the subject was first raised in N.A.T.O. I did whatever I could to encourage its consideration. I regard it as essential in the sphere of defence. We made a quite considerable contribution and since then we have increased our contribution. But now we discover that they are actually saving money. I know that we cannot discuss the saving of money. I have been long enough in this House to understand that that is one thing we cannot discuss. We

can discuss the spending of money, but we must not discuss the saving of money.
The hon. Gentleman did mention the subject and I should like to know from him what he thinks about the development of infrastructure. How are we getting on with these airfields? In particular, I should ask him this question. I hope I have not misunderstood him. He said, in reference to infrastructure, "We have no control over the work in other countries. Although we make our contribution and spend vast sums of money in the provision of airfields and communications in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the like—we have no control over this work."

Mr. Birch: That is not absolutely what I said. What I said was that it is very difficult for us to control the work in the countries in which it is carried out because it is done by foreign contractors, who are not, so to speak, under our command. Of course the expenditure and the work are most carefully examined on an international basis to see that there is nothing going wrong.

Mr. Shinwell: I thought I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly because I put it down, and he used the words, "no control over the work." Perhaps he will now be good enough to inform the Committee whether at the Ministry of Defence any control at all is exercised over infrastructure. Does the Ministry supervise the operations in any way in so far as our financial contribution entitles us so to do? In any event, it seems that the Committee is entitled, and perhaps on some other occasion the House will be entitled, to rather more information than has yet been made available on the subject of infrastructure.
Are we getting value for our money? Where did I get that idea from? I got it from the party opposite; that is what they used to ask us, "Are we getting value for our money in the sphere of defence?" I ask, quite reasonably and quite modestly, are we now getting value for our money from this Government? It does not look like it. We are getting lots of personnel, high-ranking officers and the so-called lower elements, the other ranks, but are we getting value for our money? The expectations were disclosed, not a few months ago but more than two years


ago, before General Ridgway assumed the Supreme Command. Are we getting value for our money? Where is it all going?
I am not speaking of the defence expenditure within the United Kingdom. I am speaking of the defence expenditure for which the Ministry of Defence is responsible in N.A.T.O., on the Continent and in Washington. Are we getting value for our money? It does not look as if we are, but if the hon. Gentleman can convince the Committee that we are getting full value for our expenditure I shall be very glad to be furnished with the necessary information.
I recognise that this is not what is usually called a "first-class debate." We are only probing and exploring the ground. We are within our rights, as you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, will agree, in asking questions on expenditure incurred by the Government before we pass this Supplementary Estimate. It would seem to me, however, that we have not had an adequate debate on the real substance of defence; and expenditure is increasing all the while on items which would appear to be not entirely irrelevant to defence but subsidiary to it. We require a great deal more information. Although this Supplementary Estimate would appear on the face of it to be innocuous, I suggest it conceals an unnecessary expenditure on items which, so far as I can ascertain, are not producing much of value to the defence system, either in the United Kingdom or within N.A.T.O.
In particular, I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the expenditure incurred on the British Joint Services Mission in Washington. I am not criticising Sir William Elliot. Far from it. I had something to do with his appointment. He is a first-class officer, a man of great ability, and I am sure he is able to keep our end up in the discussions that take place at the Pentagon and in Washington generally. But I should like to know who are his associates and whether he has too many of them; whether we are still inclined to send people over there to support him merely because we have no other place for them.

Mr. Birch: Mr. Birch indicated dissent.

Mr. Shinwell: That sometimes happens, and the hon. Gentleman need not shake his head. A high-ranking officer reaches a position when there is no longer hope of further promotion. The time has not come for his retirement and he must be sent somewhere. He has to earn, or he has to get his living, whether he earns it or not. It may be that such officers are being sent to Washington; and we must not have that sort of thing going on.
I agree that defence is essential. I have said so over and over again. Defence is essential in the present situation in Europe and elsewhere. But let us see to it that we have the substance of defence, by which I mean active and battle-worthy formations on the ground and the necessary elements ready in the air and on the sea; and that we do not clutter up this defence organisation with personnel, much of which, in my judgment, is unnecessary.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: We would agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that this is an occasion for probing expenditure. One of the most difficult sorts of expenditure to probe is that which seems to be to some extent supra-national.
My hon. Friend has told us of the increase in the size of the British elements at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Are those establishments decided purely by the Ministry of Defence or at a higher level, that is to say, from the international point of view? Are they decided by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation itself? There is a good reason for asking this question. In this country, when Defence Estimates are prepared, they are afterwards carefully scrutinised by the Treasury. When estimates are being prepared at an international level the North Atlantic Treaty Council operates as a sort of international Ministry of Defence, but there seems to be no subsequent Treasury examination.
Can my hon. Friend tell the Committee what is the machinery and what is the procedure about this? To the ordinary person it would seem that the Council fixes its own establishments and that its purpose is to raise as much contribution as possible from the countries who are


signatories of the Treaty. It is an entirely different procedure. We would like to know where the control really resides, and to what extent Her Majesty's Government are able to exercise control.
I would refer briefly to the question of infrastructure. I was not certain of the purport of my hon. Friend's remarks in this respect. We are all very anxious that the infrastructure should go on as quickly as possible. But, as there has been a saving, the indication is that it is not being proceeded with as quickly as was expected. Is the reason for the saving that the equipment—our contribution in kind—to which my hon. Friend referred, is not ready to be sent out? Or is it because the countries in which infrastructure is to be located are not yet ready to receive that equipment? If that is so, what is being done to make certain they get on more quickly, and what is holding up the operation of this infrastructure? Is there anything that we can do to hasten it?
Though I hope my hon. Friend will also deal with those points, I feel that the really important point is the question of the control of this international expenditure, and I trust that he will say something about that.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) when he says that this discussion is not to be regarded as a first-class debate. In my judgment, there is no more important occasion during the year, and it is a matter for regret that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee seem to agree with my right hon. Friend rather than with me. It is a fact that defence debates, ever since they were first introduced in 1946, have tended to become more and more concerned with policy on the grand scale. They seem almost to be foreign affairs debates, and there have been no debates concerned with the basic organisation of the defence services, and the position of the Minister.
A year ago I was critical of the appointment of the present Minister of Defence. My criticism was not on personal grounds, but because I thought that what we needed was someone with a great knowledge of industry, and with a strong political position, who would be able to

pull together the three defence Ministries and the Ministry of Supply and get on with the job of welding all together to produce a first-class defence machine. During the past year nothing has happened to lessen the fears that I expressed on that occasion.
Provided I am in order, I wish to spend a few moments in examining what has happened during the past year, strictly in relation to the position of the Minister of Defence himself, whose salary is borne on this Estimate. When this Government was formed—

The Deputy-Chairman: The salary of the Defence Minister is not borne on the Supplementary Estimate which the Committee is now discussing.

Mr. Wigg: I agree, Mr. Hopkin Morris. Perhaps I put it badly. The salary of the Minister is not directly on the Supplementary Estimate, but he is responsible for the Supplementary Estimate and, therefore, it would seem to me that I am in order in discussing the Minister in relation to the Supplementary Estimate before the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon Member will be in order in discussing the items set out in the Supplementary Estimate. He will be out of order in discussing anything else.

Mr. Wigg: I defer to your Ruling. I will confine my remarks to the broad point that the political position of the Minister of Defence has become weaker and weaker during the year. Without trespassing on your feelings in the matter, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I want to point to one fact. There was, just before Christmas, a debate in which Members from both sides demanded a revision of Service pensions.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am allowing the hon. Gentleman every latitude. I do not think that that question comes within this Vote.

Mr. Wigg: I have not the least intention of developing the point. I merely wish to say that there was a demand from all parts of the House and I am sure that the Minister agreed with those who made it. If his political position had any strength at all, I am sure that something would have been done. Nothing has been done because, although the Minister is a


most distinguished officer, his political position is weaker than that of the most recently appointed Parliamentary Secretary.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to come to the Vote.

Mr. Wigg: I am doing my best to come to the Vote. I make this point by way of illustration. I am not arguing the merits of the question of increasing the retired pay of officers. I realise that that would be out of order. There is no need to mention it because the case is overwhelming. As anyone who reads HANSARD will agree, something ought to be done. I am stressing that nothing has been done. I am sure that something would have been done if the Minister had felt strong enough to do it.

The Deputy-Chairman: Once more I must ask the hon. Gentleman to devote his attention to the Vote which is before the Committee.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if I have strayed outside the rules of order. I have been most careful not to discuss the merits of the argument about pensions. If, in fact, I have infringed your ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I am indeed sorry. I quoted pensions by way of example and I thought that by linking that question to the responsibility of the Minister I should not be trespassing too far on your good nature.
I turn to the question of infrastructure. It is true that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington first mentioned the matter in the House, his statement was received with howls of laughter, led by the Prime Minister. Of course, the Prime Minister has found out quite a lot about defence since he first began to laugh about infrastructure. If I am not mistaken, when the Prime Minister assumed the office of Minister of Defence when forming his Government, he did it because he did not know then—strange as it may seem—that there was physically a Ministry of Defence with an office and an administrative machine.
He took on the job because he thought he would be a Minister of Defence rather on the grand scale. He did not realise that there was an administrative job attached to it. As soon as he found out that there was a job to be done he

dropped it and appointed the present Minister of Defence. Just as he had not gone into the organisation of the Ministry of Defence with any great care before he assumed office, I do not think that he has gone into the matter with any great care during the last 18 months.
The result is that the development of infrastructure, the building of communications and aerodromes, is in a parlous condition. This country is pouring out a great part of its national wealth and its economy is straining to bursting point to keep nearly five divisions on the Continent of Europe. But the fact is overlooked that these five divisions are in front of the aerodromes, in advance of the infrastructure upon which they would have to depend for their lives and upon which this country would have to depend if ever things went wrong.
I should have thought that we would have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Prime Minister during the defence debates something about future progress. We have not been told about the building up of aerodromes and communications which come under the heading of infrastructure. We had a very patchy defence debate and very patchy Service Estimates debates. Now we have a Supplementary Estimate which, if necessary, I would support in the Division Lobby, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will go back to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence and ask them to ensure that before next year we get more information.
The Prime Minister, if he is the spokesman of the Minister of Defence, should tell us the principles upon which our defence policies are based so that the House of Commons and the public who pay the bill will be able to appreciate whether they are, in fact, getting value for their money. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington when he expresses grave doubts whether or not we are getting value for money in terms that the bill is too big. I also doubt whether we are getting value for money in terms of the defence of this country both at home and overseas.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary one question which is about the Supplementary Estimate and


which has nothing to do with the character of the Minister of Defence. Almost all these subheads are concerned with the emoluments of an increased British element at one headquarters or another. Although I understand that the establishments of these staffs have been increased and, therefore, new officers are filling the posts, those officers are not new to the Services. If they were not occupying these posts they would be occupying other posts in the Army, the Air Force or the Royal Navy.
I cannot see any note in the explanation referring to any comparable economy in the Estimates of the three Services from which the officers have been taken. I should like to think that there were some such economies. All these cannot be additional allowances. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) drew attention to the tendency of all headquarters staffs, and especially staffs of an international character, to get bigger and bigger and somehow to find within their ranks more and more major-generals. It is proper that we should examine these staffs and ensure that that tendency does not expand.
Equally, it would be wrong if this Committee poured too much scorn on the most important work which is now being done. It is extremely important that these posts should be filled by officers of the highest qualifications for what must often be despairing and disappointing duties. We do not want major-generals filling in time before their official retirement. That has happened in the past. Even the Railway Executive once had a future C.I.G.S. as deputy-chairman before there was an opportunity for his appointment.
But it is not only among the ranks of the generals that there is a difficulty. This form of staff work is not popular among the G.1 and G.2 grades. One cannot really imagine many commanders of regiments encouraging a major in a battalion to accept an offer of a post on a staff of this sort if, at the same time, the officer is in line for command of the regiment.
I should like to think that our training, particularly our staff training, encouraged the very best officers in their class who are suitable for the job to take up these appointments, because it is quality, even more than numbers, that we need,

although, of course, numbers play their part as well.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have often wondered what the Ministry of Defence does. The argument for the existence of a Ministry of Defence used to be that it would co-ordinate the various Services, and that the establishment of such a Ministry would prevent overlapping and would result in a measure of control over the Services, and, to some extent, a measure of national economy. Although the amount mentioned here is only £10, the question is not so much that amount as the tendency which this White Paper indicates. I believe that we should have a document which is really understandable by ordinary hon. Members of the House.
I should like some explanation of the item of £11,000 mentioned on page 2. Here, we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence telling us simply nothing at all about it. Apparently, some high-ranking officers went to Washington, and some of them went to Korea. Could we be told why these high-ranking officers went to Washington? What did they discuss there? What was the need for this particular special mission? Did they discuss affairs in the Far East or affairs in Europe?
We are told here that certain expenses are in connection with N.A.T.O. I remember quite well the debate when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was set up. Then, the great argument of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin was that, by establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, we should save money. Instead of this Ministry of Defence co-ordinating and exercising some kind of supervision over our defence expenditure, the fact is that defence expenditure has now become astronomical. It may be indicated as only £10 in this Estimate, but our actual expenditure on defence this year comes to 11s. 6d. per individual, 23s. for every two people and £2 17s. 6d. for a family of five.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must limit his remarks to the amounts involved in this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that, but every pound that is spent is adding to


the already heavy burden of defence expenditure, which is outlined in this document, and I do not see what purpose the Ministry of Defence serves. Why is this expensive Ministry imposed on all the other three Service Ministries if it is to come along with a Vote, even if limited to £10?

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will limit his remarks to the expenditure indicated in the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Hughes: I want to ask a further question about the special mission to Korea. What did they do in Korea? Did they look at the Korean situation in any particular aspect and say "The time has come to re-examine the whole position in Korea"? Are we not entitled to some explanation about why they went there and what the findings of the mission were?
There are also items dealing with high ranking officers of N.A.T.O., and the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned Earl Mountbatten. Would it be too much to ask him if the salary of Earl Mountbatten is borne on this Estimate, and exactly how much it is?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in order on this Estimate to ask that question.

Mr. Birch: Mr. Birch rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in order to answer it, either.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Hopkin Morris, on the question of the first of the items in this Supplementary Estimate; that is, the one relating to £10? I understand that that is a Supplementary Estimate of the amount required in 1953 for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence. We have had no debate on the Ministry of Defence. We have had a debate on a White Paper, but we have had no debate on the Ministry itself, and this is the first time when the salaries of that Ministry have come up for debate. When salaries are raised on an Estimate, I have always understood that the whole function of the Ministry concerned in asking for money for those salaries is debatable.

The Deputy-Chairman: Only those salaries that are included in this Supplementary Estimate are debatable.

Mr. Paget: I am not dealing with the second item, but only with the first relating to £10. That is a general item indicating the amount required in a year for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence. The second item, which is the larger figure, is relatively narrow, but the first one relating to the £10 should, I submit, cover the whole question of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Defence.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the top of page 3, he will find an explanation in subheads A. 4, B. 1 and B. 2, and the debate is limited to what is contained in that.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that is not so. That comes under the second item, and those are the subheads. The first one, as I submitted at the opening of my remarks—

The Deputy-Chairman: There are no details of the first part of the Supplementary Estimate. The details are concerned with the second part.

Mr. Paget: If that means that a Supplementary Vote of some hundreds of thousands of pounds, indeed, I think, millions, has become a mere detail of £10, it seems to me somewhat curious.

The Deputy-Chairman: It may seem curious to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but we can only discuss the items set out here and ask for information on them. We cannot go into general policy in this debate.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, is not that a new Ruling? Surely, always in previous years and even last year, when dealing with this Estimate, it was treated as allowing a debate of wide scope.

The Deputy-Chairman: These items are usually set out in this form, and only those matters referred to in the Estimate may be debated.

Mr. Paget: Surely, the practice has been that where we have had a particular Estimate debated, we have been confined to the details of that Supplementary Estimate, but where we have to deal with


the requirements of a Ministry, and where a Supplementary Estimate includes an estimate for salaries—

The Deputy-Chairman: I regret that I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that the debate on a Supplementary Estimate is confined to that Supplementary Estimate.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Birch: Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) have complained of the content of the defence debate, but, as they both took part in it, I think they must accept some share of the responsibility for it.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not complaining about it. What I said was that the Prime Minister had devoted certainly 50 per cent. of his speech to the subject of National Service, and the remainder of his speech to foreign policy, which gave the tone to the debate and imparted a line to the debate, with the result that we did not discuss the subject of defence at all. That is not my fault.

Mr. Birch: Is that true? I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman himself had perhaps given the tone to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by his great activities on the subject of National Service, which led my right hon. Friend to devote a large part of his speech to that subject. As, perhaps, I shall be out of order if I pursue that matter further I had better leave it there.
The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by asking a question about the British Joint Services Mission in Washington. Only £11,000 extra is asked, and that includes the appointment of Major-General Shoosmith as Deputy Chief of Staff to General Mark Clark. Therefore, we can see that the amount devoted to Washington is quite small. Incidentally, General Shoosmith's appointment was fully explained in the House last year. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not here.
As far as staff in Washington is concerned, there are 12 Service officers and four civil officers of the executive grade.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman now to say that the

appointment of Major-General Shoosmith is the cause of the £11,000 expenditure? Is there no other item? Does he absorb the lot?

Mr. Birch: No. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Supplementary Estimate under the correct heading, which is A.4, he will see a reference there tooth to General Shoosmith and to certain additional expenses in Washington. The point I am making is that those expenses are quite small, because General Shoosmith's appointment comes out of that figure as well. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that Washington is not a place to which dud officers are appointed. I do not think that anyone would appoint a dud officer to a place where he spends a great many dollars.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), have talked about the size of headquarters and have said what a pity it is that the number of officers required has gone up. It certainly is a pity, but the Supreme Allied Command Atlantic, with which the right hon. Member for Easington had something to do, could not have been set up without British participation.
We now have a Command in the Mediterranean and, therefore, additional officers were bound to be required there. The question has been raised, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, as to what control we have over the size of headquarters and over international expenditure in these matters. The answer is that we have quite a lot. There is a Military Budget Committee which examines all the budgets of these headquarters, and there is a Military Complements Committee of the Standing Group which examines all the headquarters establishments.
We are represented on both these committees, as are the other members of N.A.T.O., and a great many people besides ourselves are economy minded. When these headquarters are set up there is always a considerable battle to try to keep them as small as possible. It is not by any means always a losing battle, and a great many items of expenditure have been cut out.
It is clearly to our interest to see that these headquarters are not bloated and to see that the expenditure on them is


kept as low as possible. We have people in the Ministry of Defence whose job it is constantly to watch these things, to go round and examine how the money is being spent, and to insist where they can on economy.
The right hon. Member for Easington made great play with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's dislike of the word "infrastructure," but it is clamped upon us now and I am afraid we shall never get away from it. I think it barbarous. However, it is accepted internationally—

Mr. Shinwell: I did not invent it.

Mr. Birch: No, but the right hon. Gentleman accepted it. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would have done so, because I think that his sense of the English language is too great for that.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say which word the Prime Minister would have substituted for "infrastructure"?

Mr. Birch: I was about to suggest that that would be a good Question for the right hon. Gentleman to put down to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Shinwell: I shall.

Mr. Birch: On the question of infrastructure, that, again, is controlled internationally. There is a committee of N.A.T.O., on which the Ministry of Defence is represented, whose job it is to watch the carrying out of the work and to see that it is honestly and correctly done and that money is not wasted. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the total size of the infrastructure programme is approved by the Defence Ministers of all the participating countries. In fact, there was an interesting debate on it between the Ministers in Paris in December last.
People ask how we are getting on with infra-structure. I think its progress is quite good. Nearly 100 airfields have been approved, and a great many are already in use. A lot of communications have been set up of which, again, a great many are in use. The work is going forward reasonably well. We believe that what has been authorised is all essential. We have been careful to point out what is not essential, and we also believe that so

far as the work has proceeded it has been reasonably well carried out. We do our best to see that money is not wasted, and we watch the matter very carefully.

Mr. Shinwell: There is one item which requires further elucidation. The hon. Gentleman referred to the appointment of Major-General Shoosmith to the staff of General Mark Clark, in Korea.

Mr. Birch: In Japan.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, in Tokyo, but obviously with the purpose of assisting in the Korean affair. Item A.4, Special Missions and Services, costs £11,000. As I understood him, the hon. Gentleman said that this £11,000 represented expenditure incurred by General Shoosmith and some small items in addition. But General Shoosmith's salary, I believe, is paid by the War Office. He receives the normal salary of a major-general. That is not included in the £11,000.
How is the £11,000 made up? It cannot be attributed entirely to air and sea passages for General Shoosmith, unless, of course, he has been travelling round the world several times since his appointment. His salary is not included; it costs £11,000; it is attributable primarily to General Shoosmith, with some small items added. I think this requires further explanation. Does the hon. Gentleman really know anything about it?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman answer my question about the salary of Lord Mountbatten?

Mr. Birch: Not without notice.

Mr. Hughes: It is very important.

Mr. Birch: He receives the salary appropriate to his rank. The hon. Gentleman can find that out for himself from the Navy Estimates.

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise upon this Vote either.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Item B.2 reads:
Pay and allowances of British personnel appointed to Headquarters, Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and additional provision required for emoluments of the British Element of S.H.A.P.E. and its Subordinate Commands.
One of the subordinate commands is, of course, the Mediterranean Command.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Item B.1 he will see that it sets out:
Salaries, etc. of British Elements of North Atlantic Treaty Military Agencies, etc. (other than Command Headquarters).

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. The Minister specifically mentioned the appointment of Lord Mountbatten in his speech, and I suggest that we are entitled to have the figures when we are passing this Estimate.

Mr. Birch: Admiral Mountbatten's salary is not included in this Vote.

Mr. Hughes: Why did the hon. Gentleman say it was?

Mr. Birch: I was talking about appointments to his headquarters.

Mr. Shinwell: Where does it come in?

Mr. Birch: Presumably, in the Navy Estimates. It certainly does not come in this Vote.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for more details about this item of £11,000. The additional expenditure for the British Joint Services Mission to Washington is made up as follows. There is a liaison officer between the British and American staff who is a group captain, an additional signals liaison officer who is a civilian, a cataloguing officer who is a major, the head of the cypher office who is a flight lieutenant and there are certain mission allowances, passages, and so on, making a total of £8.000. So the additional expenditure for Washington is £8,000.

Mr. Shinwell: I must say that I am very tempted to ask my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby against this Estimate. There is a shocking state of affairs here. I do not withdraw a single word that I have said in the past or today about the need for essential defence measures, but I think that we are going beyond what is necessary in having a cataloguing officer seconded to the Joint Services Mission at Washington and a signals officer and all the rest. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman cannot justify it.
I am sorry that the Minister of Defence is not available in this Chamber so that we could interrogate him on matters of this sort. I am sure that if I had been standing at the Government Dispatch

Box and had been submitting this Supplementary Estimate the Parliamentary Secretary would have been a bit perky; in fact, even worse than perky, as he sometimes can be.

Mr. N. Macpherson: If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the appointment of a signals officer and a cypher officer, how can he and his hon. Friends insist that there should be direct communication with this country, with the Foreign Office and the Service Departments, and so on? Surely the Mission must have their own cypher officer.

Mr. Shinwell: I am surprised at the hon. Member posing that question. He must know that we have the whole of the Embassy staff at Washington closely associated with the Pentagon, and presumably there is there all the staff that is necessary for purposes of this kind. I am not saying that we should starve the Mission of essential personnel. They have various tasks that they must fulfil, but this seems to me to be going a bit too far. We cannot do anything about it now. That is regrettable. But I ask the Committee to take note of an expenditure which appears to me to be quite unnecessary and irrelevant to the purpose of defence.

Mr. Wigg: I do not really want to challenge the Ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but it seems to me that the decisions which you have given circumscribes our discussions this evening and, as was pointed out, will circumscribe certain future discussions. The explanation given on the Supplementary Estimate says that there is:
Provision for the first time for the emoluments of British personnel appointed to the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander, Atlantic, and to various military Agencies of the Standing Group.
If, for the first time, we are being asked to meet the cost of the appointment of the Supreme Commander, Atlantic, it is in order to discuss the appointment itself and the machinery that is being set up. If that is not possible, the House of Commons has lost a considerable control over matters of which it should be taking notice.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not the first time that that subject has been discussed. As I pointed out, the reason it is excluded is that on page 3 of the


Supplementary Estimate, under B 1, it is stated that the expenditure relates to matters "other than Command Headquarters."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations including contributions and a contribution towards certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America.

CLASS VI

VOTE 8. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,975,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants, grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research; services in connection with livestock; land settlement; land drainage; purchase, adaptation, development and management of land; agricultural credits and marketing; the guarantee of a minimum price for home-produced wool; the prevention of food infestation; agricultural training and settlement schemes; fishery organisation, research and development: and sundry other services.

AGRICULTURE, ENGLAND AND WALES

7.55 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): The main item of Class VI, Vote 8, which concerns the eradication of diseases of animals, requires a Supplementary Estimate of £3,250,000. I expect that the Committee would like a brief explanation of why we need that very large extra sum. The details given show that the first item for which we require additional money is for the attested herd scheme, in respect of which we require an additional £600,000. This scheme is going ahead rather faster than we estimated, and by the end of last year we had about 3.7 million cattle attested. That is nearly 40 per cent. of the total cattle of the country. I am sure

that hon. Members will be very glad to have that information.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Are they dairy cattle only?

Mr. Nugent: No, all cattle. It is because the scheme has been going ahead rather faster than we expected that we require this extra money.
The second item under this head is additional compensation for foot-and-mouth disease. The Estimate provides for a token figure of £110,000, and we are asking for a Vote of £2,400,000. This is a story with which all hon. Members are familiar. We had an exceptionally heavy incidence of foot-and-mouth disease during 1952, particularly in April, May and June. It was one of the heaviest that the country has ever experienced. We have had 458 outbreaks in the 11 months up to February. I am glad to be able to say that there has been a very substantial reduction in the incidence of outbreaks in the past five months though they are still enough to cause anxiety.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Can the hon. Gentleman say what has been the average cost of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease over a number of years?

Mr. Nugent: I have some figures for the cost over the past few years which may be the figures which the hon. and learned Member may like to have.
The cost in 1947–48 was £68,000, in 1948–49 £86,000, in 1949–50 £54.000 and in 1950–51 £72,000. These are all round figures. In 1951–52, when the recent outbreak started, the cost went up to £439,000. and this year it is up to the figure which is now before the Committee. It is an incidence of very exceptional severity, and we sincerely hope that it will not recur.
The next item for which we require a Supplementary Estimate is for compensation for fowl pest. There again the incidence of the disease has been higher than we expected, especially in the latter part of the year—in December and January—when we had more than 400 outbreaks. Perhaps I should tell the Committee that the incidence has been even higher than we expected when we prepared the Supplementary Estimate so that even now that Estimate may not quite cover the full cost of compensation.


In addition, there are miscellaneous items for dealing with these outbreaks—expenditure on disinfection, slaughter, etc. On the other side of the picture, under Subhead Z, "Appropriations in aid," there is a recovery of £370,000 for carcases which have been salvaged, and that to some extent meets the considerable additional expenditure.
The other items are of a minor nature. The item relating to salaries, £100,000. is mainly on account of increased salary scales in the National Agricultural Advisory Service and the National Milk Testing Service. A certain amount of additional veterinary staff were kindly seconded to us from Eire and Northern Ireland to help with the outbreaks of disease.

Mr. Woodburn: Could the hon. Gentleman separate the figures for milk cattle and give an idea of what progress is being made with tubercular-freed cattle for milk?

Mr. Nugent: I am not quite clear about the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. If he would define his question more clearly I should be glad to try to answer it.

Mr. Woodburn: There are certain areas in the country completely free. I was wondering if they had been extended to any considerable degree.

Mr. Nugent: I dealt with that question in my opening remarks about the attested herd scheme, when I explained that the rate of eradication had proceeded more rapidly than we had expected. The areas in which there has been complete eradication are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in his country, and we hope that that will extend to areas in this country in due course. Very good progress has been made in Scotland.
I was about to mention that the additional travelling expenses were mainly on account of the additional cost of dealing with the eradication of disease on the animal health division's account, and partly on account of the increased rates which have been introduced during the year. On J.7 the Agricultural Land Commission require an extra £20,000, but the Committee will notice that there is a recovery of £100,000 under the

appropriations in aid, so that on balance they are up.
Turning to Class VI, Vote 9, the main items for which we require Supplementary Estimates are the grants on the calf rearing subsidy. We are asking for an additional £1,700,000. The original Estimate of £1,800,000 was the estimated cost of meeting the subsidies on the 1949 calf subsidy scheme, which terminated officially on 30th September, 1951. Calves born before that date qualify for the calf subsidy under that scheme, as amended, when they become nine months old during 1952–53. Therefore, in the original Estimate a sum of £1.8 million was put down to cover that cost.
No provision was made in that Estimate for the new Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act which we intended to introduce during the past 12 months. Therefore, we are now asking for an additional £1.7 million in order to cover the costs of the calf subsidy scheme under the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act, 1952, which fall in the current financial year ending this month. As the Committee will remember, that Act was put on the Statute Book last October, and therefore payments and certification under it have only been able to take place in the last two or three months. These are early days yet to say just how that scheme is proceeding and how successful it will be, but there is some encouragement to be obtained from the figures in the quarterly agricultural returns of last December, which showed an increase in calves of about 128,000.
The evidence shows that there has been a greater retention of calves during the past 12 months. The main evidence of that is the lower figures for the slaughtering of calves. It is too early to tell from the figures how the scheme is going, but, for what they are worth, I will give them to the Committee. During January, 23,600 calves were certified, and during February, 116,400 calves were certified, making a total of 140,000 calves in two months. We know that there are about 47,000 applications which are still waiting to be dealt with, and they probably account for something between 300,000 and 400,000 calves.
The considerable backlog is being worked off, I think, quite rapidly. I am satisfied that in the next two months the


arrears will have been completely worked off. The Committee might wish to know that the initial difficulty, which was mentioned in the House last December, of the standards relating to certification has been overcome, and there now seems to be no difficulty in that respect.
The other large item in Vote 9 is the Supplementary Estimate of £1 million for the ploughing-up subsidy. The amount put in the Estimate was £3.8 million, and we require a further £1 million. The explanation is that the response to that first scheme was rather greater than we expected in our most optimistic moments. The figures have been stated here before, but I might state them again. For England and Wales there was a total acreage of 610,000, for Northern Ireland 150,000 and for Scotland, 280,000, making a total of 1,040,000 acres.
The second ploughing-up scheme, which ran on from the end of the first one and started on 1st June, 1952, for £5 an acre and a special £10 an acre subsidy for land which involves particular expense in ploughing-up, has not yet incurred a large sum in payments. The Committee will recollect that one of the conditions of the Act is that in addition to the actual ploughing-up of the land, further operations, which normally mean the sowing of the crop, have to follow before there is qualification for the subsidy. The natural result of that is that payment has so far only been made for land which was ploughed for autumn sowing.
Up to 28th February, payment had been made in respect of 87,000 acres under the second ploughing scheme. At this time, of course, large numbers of applications are coming in following spring sowing, which has been done throughout the country. The additional sum of £1 million will be needed to meet the response that we have had from the two schemes.
The smaller item on this Vote—assistance for the white fish industry—is, of course, due to the fact that the inshore and middle water vessels have had a much more difficult year than was originally expected, and rather more payments have been required for the near and middle water vessels. A much larger weight of fish was landed and, therefore, the subsidy of 10d. a stone was required on a much larger weight, and more money

is needed. Under that heading we are asking for an extra £100,000.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary has given us, as usual, a very full, detailed and clear explanation of the figures, and it makes my task of following him a good deal easier.
I am bound to follow up what he said by putting one or two questions to him on Class VI, Vote 8. I think that I ought to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Wood-burn) because when I accused him of invading the home rule territory of England and Wales I overlooked the fact that the eradication of disease is a matter for the United Kingdom and not only for England and Wales, and I gladly withdraw the remark I made.
The sum of £600,000 which we are being asked to vote for the eradication of tubercular diseases of animals is, in my opinion, a very good figure. It is rather different from the rest of the figures lumped together under H.1. I am not quite sure that I followed the hon. Gentleman's figures, but I understood him to say that the number of cattle now attested for England and Wales, or for the United Kingdom, was 40 per cent. of the total. If that is so, it is a very encouraging figure. It is so high that I was a little surprised that we have got so far as we have, and I think that for the part which he has had in pushing this on the hon. Gentleman ought to receive the congratulations of the Committee.
Could the hon. Gentleman take this matter a little further and tell us how many herds are now attested? There used to be a very interesting table published which showed the positions of the counties, at any rate, in England and Wales. Would it be possible to have those figures published in the OFFICIAL REPORT? It would be interesting now that we have had some excellent progress to see how this is split up about the country, and how the various counties are doing. If we could be told the number of herds that were attested, I should be very grateful.
I now turn to the less encouraging and gloomy business of the £2,400,000 which has been thrown away in respect of paying people for cattle which we had to slaughter on account of disease. There


the story is altogether different. The hon. Gentleman gave us comparative figures for some years past, and this is an outstandingly black year. I do not think that he told us how many animals the compensation payment of £2,400,000 represents. It would interest some of us if he could tell us how many animals have had to be put away for this reason, and how many of these are dairy cattle, so that we could see more clearly the extent of this scourge in terms of cattle rather than in terms of money.
I would also like to be told a little more —since we are bearing the whole cost here—about what is now being done to get to grips with the things at the bottom, as it were. We were concerned when we had all these cattle die, and a good deal was said about what was being done and about a committee being set up, but that all seems to have drifted away a little, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman tonight would tell us what we are doing in the international field, and what steps we are taking with regard to other people who are also affected. We should be also glad to know the particular cause as to why so many animals were infected and how much of the disease was flown in by migrant birds.
Under the heading of General Services —salaries, etc.—the hon. Gentleman said that this covered some extra "vets" and improvements for some other people. Many of us have felt that the N.A.A.S. and the scientific services of the Ministry are extremely thin on the ground that they tend to attract the young men coming out of the colleges, but do not hold the good experienced fellows who go off elsewhere. Can he tell us how much of the £100,000 has gone in the improvement of salary scales for that kind of work? If he could also say which classes have had improved salary scales, I should be very grateful to him.
Under the heading J.7—Agricultural Land Commission—we are asked to vote an extra £20,000 to pay for the increase in the area of land under the control of the Commission. I vote that with great pleasure, and I am glad to say that the Conservative Party will no longer be able to make the sort of gibe which the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) made to me the other day about nationalising the land, now that they are

asking us to vote £20,000 in order to do it.
I want the Committee to look at the next Vote Class VI, Vote 9.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers): We must dispose of Vote 8 first. I allowed the Minister to make his speech on Vote 9, but we must first dispose of Vote 8.

Mr. Brown: They are both Votes of the Ministry. A division between the food production services and the Ministry itself is clearly an artificial one; they cannot be divided. The administrative services are much the same, and I think that it would take up less time if I were allowed to continue.

The Temporary Chairman: That is impossible. It is the ruling that the Votes are taken separately.

Mr. Brown: In that case, I shall have to get my breath back and do much better the next time. I think that I have raised the two matters to which I particularly wanted to refer. No doubt other hon. Members have points to raise on various items on Vote 8, and I hope that we shall get an answer from the hon. Gentleman on the various questions I have asked.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I wish to direct attention to Vote 8, H.1, eradication of diseases of animals. The incidence of foot-and-mouth disease struck my constituency particularly heavily. Can the Minister give a division of the cost of the additional Estimate as between Scotland and England and say how much of the compensation was paid in the south-western counties of Scotland?
This is a loss which falls on the community as a whole, and the loss was infinitely greater than is reflected in the Supplementary Estimate. One of the difficulties about such a loss is that, by statute, we can only deal with compensation for the animals which are destroyed. But to some extent it is possible to give additional compensation. Whether such compensation is included in the Vote or not. I am not clear, but it seems to me that where an official of the Ministry gives a specific order which results in a loss, compensation should be given for that loss as it is in the case of the destruction of cattle.
The subhead reads:
Compensation to owners of animals slaughtered….
I take it that that compensation is intended to relate to the replacement of animals which are destroyed; in other words, compensation is paid in the hope that the herd will be built up again as soon as possible. In many cases, the compensation payable for the destruction of a herd falls for taxation in one year; that is, the difference between the value of the herd as shown in the books and the compensation paid has to fall for taxation in one year, and, therefore, the purpose of the compensation, which is the replacement of the herd, is frustrated. If the Exchequer takes the compensation away in taxation in the one year it is plain that the purpose of the compensation payment cannot be realised.
I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of the problem. I know also that it needs legislation to remedy the position. There will be a very appropriate opportunity for such legislation in the very near future. I hope that my hon. Friends the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland are bringing the strongest possible pressure to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make certain in his Budget that the anomaly is remedied.
My information is that the Committee who are at present studying the problem —the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) referred to it—are sitting extremely assiduously, meeting fortnightly or oftener. One would expect that by now their labours are almost reaching fruition. Can the Minister tell us when we may expect their report to be made available to him? I take it that when it is made available to him it will not be very long before it is laid before the House.
I hope that this very sad and destructive outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease will not lead to a further restriction on movement over the Border, because it would be very unfortunate if that were to happen. It would result in a very great restriction in trade and it would damage farmers on both sides of the Border to a considerable extent. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about this when he replies.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I am glad that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) should have raised the subject of foot-and-mouth disease and the need for continued research and further information about the various Committees which have been dealing with the matter.
Under the heading "G. 9—Agricultural Research: Grants in Aid," there is a revised Estimate of £1,345,000. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give me a comparable figure for last year and also the amount which we have spent on research each year since the war? We all agree that this part of agriculture is of vital importance, especially when we consider the specific problem of the eradication of the diseases of animals.
The Parliamentary Secretary gave the figure of 458 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease to the end of February. I saw in this week's "Farmer's Weekly" a report of another outbreak in Bedfordshire affecting 71 cattle, so it is obvious that we are not yet on top of the disease. On a number of occasions I have pleaded the cases for research into the disease. Here we have a specific heading dealing with foot-and-mouth disease and the necessity for research. The sum of £2,400,000 in compensation emphasises the magnitude of the problem.
I should like to know whether the Vote contains any item covering our contribution to European and other international organisations. I understand that the organisations which deal with foot-and-mouth disease from a wider point of view are the International Office of Epizootics, the O.E.E.C. and the F.A.O. What is our financial contribution to these bodies? Have we increased it over the year? To what are we committed financially in relation to the European plan which has been sponsored by F.A.O.? We had a lengthy debate on this some time ago and the Minister gave certain details. I should like to know how much progress has been made by the Departmental Committee, and I hope that a report will soon be forthcoming and that we shall find out how we can successfully prevent a recurrence of last year's tragedy. It is important to have information on this point.
Under subhead G.9 we deal with additional grants in aid of annual expenditure


of colleges, institutions, etc. I should like to know how the amount compares with last year. I should have thought there would have been a considerable increase. In reply to a question in March last year the Minister said that we should have two more agricultural colleges, and, therefore, we should expect a considerable increase in expenditure to meet their costs. What is the position? However, perhaps we should not be too optimistic in that direction because in March last year the Minister said that plans for other colleges would proceed as soon as economic conditions allowed. I know what has happened in other fields of education outside agriculture where, as deliberate policy, the Government have made certain cuts. I hope that the policy pursued in directions affecting general education will not apply to our agricultural colleges.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman says that education grants have been cut, but does he not agree that the amount of money being spent on education this year is greater than it has ever been before?

Mr. Peart: It is not true to say that a greater amount of money is being spent on the education of each pupil when we realise that there has been a great increase in the school population. I would be going out of order if I pursued the matter with which I am greatly concerned. There have been economies, and the Minister responsible produced Circular No. 245, which I invite the hon. Member to read.
On agricultural research, I merely say that I hope that that policy, which has pursued in other directions, will not filter into the Ministry of Agriculture, which always has had a good name in this sphere. I trust there will be no parsimony in relation to the meeting of costs to run these colleges and institutions which are so important.

8.31p.m.

Mr. G. R. H. Nugent: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) asked me how many attested herds there were as distinct from the 3.7 million cattle. I am glad to say that I have the number here. It is now 96,000 herds that have become attested, and in

addition some 3,000 are being supervised on the way to being attested. I entirely agree with him that this is a very good story. I am not able to give him the county distribution tonight, but I will see what I can provide for him from the Department in the course of the next few days.
The right hon. Gentleman also wished to know how many cattle had been slaughtered. I am not able to give him that figure because I do not have it here, but I will let him have it. He wanted to know, also, what was being done in the international sphere to co-operate with the near European countries. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has already said to him of the measures that we have been taking to co-operate with F.A.O. and other European bodies on epizootic research.

Mr. G. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman does not manage the figures, he manages the word all right.

Mr. Nugent: I think I deserve congratulations on that.
We are most anxious to co-operate as closely as we can with these bodies, because there is no doubt at all, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the disease has come over here from France, where there has been a very great incidence of the disease. Not only does it come by birds carrying it, but quite possibly the virus is carried over in the wind.
The right hon. Gentleman and others have inquired about the Gowers Committee. They have been assiduously dealing with this matter, but I cannot forecast when they will be making their report. I know they felt it necessary to take a great deal of evidence in this country, and before they finish they wish to visit the main countries where foot-and-mouth disease is dealt with in an effective manner, including the United States and the Argentine as well as European countries. I think we can be confident that when their report is submitted to my right hon. Friend it will be something really comprehensive and authoritative.
I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman what proportion of the additional sum for salaries was to go to members of the Advisory Service. The answer is, £105,000. That is more than the total Supplementary Estimate, but the reason


is that there have been savings in other directions and the total amount that is required is, in fact, something like £150,000. The greater part of it is for additional salaries for the advisory service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) asked whether I could give him the number of outbreaks in Scotland. I would not be sure to an outbreak, but I think the figure is 86 for the current 12 months. I cannot give him the precise cost of compensation in each outbreak, but I can give him some indication by telling him that the average cost of an outbreak is about £5,000.

Mr. N. Macpherson: What was the total cost?

Mr. Nugent: No doubt my hon. Friend can calculate, if there were 86 outbreaks, and if the average cost of an outbreak was £5,000, some indication of the cost of the Scottish outbreaks. I entirely agree that it is most desirable to bring this scourge to an end as soon as we can and to avoid movement bans on cattle across the Border. It is desirable to have the greatest possible movement over the Border both ways.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked me for research estimates for the year. I am not sure how far you would allow me to go in answering him, Mr. Rogers, because the business before the Committee is only a Supplementary Estimate, but I can give figures if I am in order in doing so. The actual expenditure on agricultural research for the year 1949–50 was £1,164,000; for 1950–51, £1,251,000; and for 1951–52, £1,547,000. The comparable figure for 1952–53 is £1,930,000. The figure before the Committee is for current expenditure only, excluding capital expenditure. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be glad to note that there is continuing development in agricultural research, which will bring great benefit to the industry.
He asked me for information on the contributions to international bodies connected with foot-and-mouth disease, but there is no provision in the Supplementary Estimates for that, and I have no information to give him. He further asked the position in regard to the additional agricultural colleges. I regret that that is also not in the Supplementary Estimate,

and that I have no information on it. I think that deals with the various questions that have been asked.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us how much has been spent during 1952-53 on actual compensation for foot-and-mouth disease. We have only the figure for the increase.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Could the hon. Gentleman also mention the question of taxation on compensation benefits?

Mr. Nugent: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries on his particular point, but I am not in the position to deal with it tonight. I can assure him that it is receiving careful consideration in my Department, but I cannot tell him the outcome of that consideration. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), the cost of compensation for foot-and-mouth disease is approximately £2,257,000 for the year.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum. not exceeding £2,975,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including grants, grants in aid and expenses in respect of agricultural education and research; services in connection with live stock; land settlement; land drainage; purchase, adaptation, development and management of land; agricultural credits and marketing; the guarantee of a minimum price for home-produced wool; the prevention of food infestation; agricultural training and settlement schemes; fishery organisation, research and development; and sundry other services.

CLASS VI

VOTE 9. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,632,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for certain food production services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: Time is getting a little short, and so I shall not take up too much, although this is an important Supplementary Estimate to which I would have liked to have devoted rather more time. I shall, therefore, deal with only three items and ask the hon. Gentleman some questions on them. He referred to the grant in regard to the rearing of calves and explained that the figure of the revised Estimate has gone up to £3½ million, requiring us to provide an extra £1,700,000.
Everywhere I go I hear complaints about the delay that exists in paying out the subsidy to applicants on the calves put forward for certification. The figures given by the hon. Gentleman himself must be worrying. He said that in January they certified 23,600, in February 116,000, and that they now have outstanding applications covering 300,000 or 400,000 animals. How far does this situation turn on the number of certifiers now being employed?
The hon. Gentleman has changed from the system that used to apply, and to which I am not particularly wedded, of the part-time, fee-per-head examiner, to a system of Ministry full-time certifiers. One would be tempted to think from those figures, and the complaints, that he is trying to achieve a saving by not employing enough full-time certifiers to do the job, and is leaving applicants to carry the burden by having to wait a good deal longer for the money. Will he please tell us how many full-time certifiers there are employed by the Ministry? Then we shall get some idea of how far he and his right hon. Friend are trying to reduce the enormous number of 400,000 calves still waiting at the end of the first three months.
The hon. Gentleman has told us how many were certified in January and February, but how many were turned down? He says that the difficulty about the standards which we set in the early days is now quietly settled and is not worrying anyone. That could mean a number of things. It could mean that the standards have been so whittled down that this has become a farce. On the other hand, it could mean that everybody now knows what the standards are and are not putting in so many calves that obviously will not make the grade.

I could form my judgment better if the hon. Gentleman would tell me how many were rejected in those months because then I could measure them against the numbers that have been accepted.
Turning to ploughing-up grants, the hon. Gentleman will not want to be worried about my general view on that subsidy, which I still do not like and which I still feel is the wrong way of getting what he wants. He gave us some figures which I found both interesting and frightening. He said that 610,000 acres were brought in—something over one million as regards the United Kingdom—in respect of the first ploughing-up scheme. That is the explanation of nearly £5 million total cost in the year as against the original estimate of about £3.4 million mentioned at the time of the last Price Review.
I am still concerned to know how much of that million acres represents a gain to the food-producing land of this country. When we discussed this matter in December last on the Maximum Tillage Pasture Acreage Order, the hon. Gentleman gave some astonishing figures. Do they relate to this one million acres, or should they be slightly amended? The hon. Gentleman then said he had an increase of tillage of 156,000 acres, so we have paid, on those figures, £5 an acre on a million acres to get a tillage increase of 156,000 acres; or, if the 156,000 acres represent England and Wales, we have paid £5 on 600,000 acres to get 156,000 acres.
Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the area of permanent grass had decreased by only 50,000 acres; so that we have paid £5 an acre on a million acres, or 600,000 acres, according to whether the figure originally given was for England and Wales or for the United Kingdom, and have paid out nearly £5 million, or £3 million at the best, to get a net reduction in the area of permanent grassland of 50,000 acres. That does not represent a payment of £5 an acre, but represents a payment varying from £60 to £100 an acre.
There is no marginal land in the country that cannot be brought into cultivation for that amount of money, and a whole lot of it, as I saw in East Anglia the other day, could be brought into cultivation for a good deal less. Do the figures which the hon. Gentleman has


given today and the figures that he gave the other day represent the two halves of the same story? If so, does it not suggest that in voting this additional sum of £1 million, we are pouring away a lot of money for very little in return?
The hon. Gentleman says that the increase in the applications was more than his wildest optimism would allow him to expect, but if all that has happened is that more people have claimed £5 for more acres than they were going to deal with anyway, I do not see what there is to be particularly pleased about. It seems to me to be a slightly worrying situation, and the fact that when the original scheme was before us I rather thought it would happen, does not reduce my sense of worry about it. I should like to hear more from the Parliamentary Secretary. I suggest that the whole business of getting our increased production in this way had better be looked at, and very quickly, even if we vote this £1 million tonight. I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends will be waiting to hear what the Minister has to say before they commit themselves in the matter.
One other smaller point that I ought to mention relates to Subhead Z— "Appropriations in aid" on page 47. There is a deficieny in the appropriations in aid which represents, I understand, the carrying forward in the Supplementary Estimate last year of a sum of £250,000 to a particular undertaking on the assurance that it would be repaid during the year. I take this item to mean that it has not been repaid because of the difficulties. I do not want to attack British Field Products, Limited—they are doing their best in a difficult situation to blaze the trail and are worthy of national help; but I ask the hon. Gentleman how far this all ties up with his own policy.
Here is a commercial undertaking, backed by the State to the extent of £250,000, to help to create a market and to begin the whole business of conserving grass and selling the high protein fodder stuff that is conserved in that way. They are in considerable difficulties—that is the secret of having this carry forward— having been not altogether without help from the hon. Gentleman and his Department in getting into those difficulties.

In the past year, the policy concerning grassland conservation and sales, and the subsidising of different forms of feeding-stuffs, has not been at all logical, and I should like to know what the Minister has to say about this. I criticise, not the company, but the whole policy and the fact that here we have reaped the benefit of saying two different things. We cannot just sit by and see £250,000 going with no chance of its recovery. We heard a lot about groundnuts when hon. Members opposite occupied these benches, and we do not want to hear about British Field Products in the same way. We cannot just see the money disappear, and we want to know what are the prospects.
Another thing which I do not quite understand is the amount of expected savings on page 46. To me the document does not make sense. If we are spending so much more money on so much more ploughing-up and cultivation—and, presumably, so much more grass farming— how does it come about that we are using less lime and paying less for it, and using less fertiliser and paying less for it? We are rehabilitating less hill farming land. There might be some quite simple explanation of this that in the old days I perhaps used to know, but I cannot for the moment think what it is. It looks to me as if we are paying on the one hand and on the other hand not worrying if our questions are not answered.

8.51 p.m.

Colonel J. H. Harrison: The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the debate we had in December about the grant in respect of rearing calves. I am glad to see that we have to pay this extra amount of £1,700,000, because I was one who pointed out that the standard set for the Eastern Counties at that time was too high and caused concern among the farmers there.
I should like to tell my hon. Friend that today they are perfectly happy with the way in which the calves are certified. I have had a report from the Secretary of the Norfolk Branch of the National Fanners' Union saying that they are satisfied and conversations with farmers in the constituency bear this out. Therefore, the action taken following the debate has borne fruit in Suffolk and my constituents, as taxpayers, will be extremely pleased that this additional sum is


being voted because they will have a large part of it coming into their pockets.
I believe that the additional grant paid on the ploughed-up land will be reflected at harvest time in the extra amount of grain we shall have, which will be required for the increased number of livestock we want to turn into meat for the people of this country.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I should like to reinforce the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) on the need for more details about the saving under the heading of "Rehabilitation of Hill Farming Land." Last year, on a similar Vote, when an extra £40,000 was required, we had a fair amount of detail.
Grants under Section 1 of the Hill Farming Act have been mentioned. I should like to know on what we are to save. This £117,500 is a considerable sum of money. We are pledged to further the production drive and I should have thought the Government would not slacken in their efforts to develop our hill farms. They make a great contribution and only recently the Minister of Agriculture circularised—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers): The hon. Member cannot discuss savings, but only expenditure.

Mr. Peart: I accept that and I agree that that is our rule when discussing the Supplementary Estimates, but the Ministry have presented their Estimate in such a form that it deals with rehabilitation of farming land.
I want to know from the Minister why it is done in this way. I mentioned that last year we had an excellent presentation of the facts and I want to know why there is a difference this year. If the Minister were able to give any details on the question it would be to the advantage of us all. We do not wish for any cutting down on any plans or schemes to rehabilitate our hill farms. Therefore, I hope there is nothing sinister in this presentation of the Vote by this Ministry of Agriculture. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an assurance on this matter.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I wish to ask about the ploughing-up grants under Subhead N. My hon. Friend gave the figures for the second ploughing-up scheme of 87,000 acres ploughed. He told us he could not give an exact figure and that this was an interim figure, because the grant was not paid until the land was cropped. I wonder whether he could give us the figure of money paid under the £10 an acre scheme. That would throw light on the amount of permanent grass being tackled.
It is most important, if it is to have its proper effect, that this ploughing-up subsidy should result in some of the more difficult land being dealt with, land which has resisted attack for so many years. I shall be pleased if the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us the figure. I believe it includes a certain amount of orchard land which, very properly, is to be grubbed and ploughed.
I feel that the grant has had a beneficial effect on agriculture. I am a great believer in the plough. All our counties could do with a bit more stirring up by the plough. Even if there is a turnover and a certain amount of laying down going on with the ploughing I believe it is desirable. We shall see the reflection of this subsidy, not only in increased acreage tillage but also in increasing yield. We tend to concentrate so much on acreage, whereas any movement which is beneficial to and increases the fertility of, the land and the general level of cultivation is bound to result—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member must not discuss general agricultural policy. He must confine himself to the increase in expenditure and the reasons for it.

Mr. Bullard: I would ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that the problem of the standards on which the calf subsidy is paid has been disposed of. When the scheme was introduced originally there was some question that this problem was chiefly troublesome in East Anglia. I know that a number of the complaints then brought up were from East Anglia. I gathered from his opening remarks that he felt the matter was now completely settled.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Champion: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eye (Colonel J. H. Harrison) frightened me when he said that his farm constituents were satisfied with the work of the certifying officers. When farmers are completely satisfied with that kind of thing I fear for the taxpayers. We had a debate on 10th December of last year when there was general agreement that a high standard should be set. If that were done I am confident that the farmers would not be satisfied.
I fear that the representations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman during that debate have had too much weight with the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, with the result that the farmers are getting too much by way of calf subsidy. We do not want to encourage an attempt to get beef out of bobby calves which can never develop into decent beef animals. We do not want to pay the farmers for that type of animal. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will satisfy us on this matter, otherwise I would wish my hon. Friends to divide against this Supplementary Estimate. I regard this as an important matter on which we should be satisfied about the way our money is being spent.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I will deal first with the question of the standards now employed for the certification of calves. I asked the Department for some figures indicating how the standard of certification was operating. The analysis of the figures of calves certified during February shows that of the total of 116,000 inspected in England and Wales 18,000, or 16.2 per cent., were not certified. The figure was made up in this way: calves not eligible, that is to say over-age calves or heifers of dairy breeds, amounted to 5.4 per cent.; those not yet certified but which possibly might qualify later, 6.6 per cent.; and those rejected as not of beef type or as being unsuitable for rearing, 4.2 per cent.
Absolute rejections were 4.2 per cent. and 6.6 per cent. are in the balance. The standard is about right now. It is most difficult to get the balance completely right. The percentage of rejections under the old scheme was about 2 per cent., so that we are doing rather better than that from the point of view of standard. It

was not our intention to raise the standard of certification of the reasonably good beef animal, but simply to maintain a uniform standard and to remove the cases where the wrong one got through. The balance is now about right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) asked what was the cost of the £10 an acre scheme. The answer is that 37,000 acres have been ploughed up at a cost of £370,000. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked for an explanation of Subheads C, D and E—sayings. The explanation is simple. The Estimate of £605,000 for hill farming land has not been completely spent. It has been spent only to the amount of £487,000. It is still more than last year's figure of about £300,000. It just happens that the matter did not go forward quite as fast as we expected.
The money for lime has not been completely spent. We put in an original Estimate of £5,250,000. We expect to spend only £5 million. The exceptionally low figures for lime during 1951–52, which were pretty bad for a number of reasons, including the weather, have been improved upon; but even so not as much lime as we should like was used last year. We are giving further consideration to that question.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) asked about the grassland fertiliser subsidy. I am surprised that he should not remember that. It is an old friend of his. It is the original scheme of 1951 with all its ramifications and complexities. This is the end of it running down. It has not gone quite as fast as we expected. It is certainly beyond our control.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked questions about the delay in calf certification. He asked how many officers were now engaged on the work, whether I thought that the backlog resulted from the introduction of the system of full-time certifying officers, and whether we had enough of them. We have 95 full-time certifying officers. I believe that that is enough.
The Committee will observe that the scheme started only in January, and that it is dealing with calves bora since 1st October, 1951. There is a huge backlog there. If we can, as I believe we can,


clear off the whole of that backlog in the next couple of months, I think we shall have done a satisfactory job and will have fully justified the economy that we were making in full-time certifying officers. The progress that is now being made leads me to think that we shall be able to do so.
I have answered the point about standards. With regard to the ploughing subsidy, I was asked what gain the nation had received from this £5 per acre subsidy, which extended to more than 1 million acres in the United Kingdom and 660,000 acres in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, when, in fact, there were only 156,000 additional acres of permanent grass ploughed up—the figure I quoted last December—and a reduction of permanent grassland of only 50,000 acres. The answer is that, over the two or three previous years, there had been a steady fall in the tillage acreage, particularly in the years 1949, 1950 and 1951. Altogether, there was a loss of something like 1 million acres, and there was this steady trend out of tillage just at the time when we not only wanted to maintain the acreage, but, if possible, to increase it.
It was quite evident, looking about the country, that farmers who had put down three year leys were leaving them down for four or five years and that, combined with the general intensity of farming, the speed of rotation was slowing down. I have no doubt that, if we had not begun an emergency measure of this kind, not only should we not have maintained the tillage acreage we had last year, but there would almost certainly have been a further fall, possibly of 400,000 or 500,000 acres.
In judging the net gain to the nation's economy that has been received from this first £5 per acre scheme, we should take into account the general trend of tillage acreage at the time we introduced it. I am quite certain that the application of the money concerned in that way—the £3.4 million originally estimated, though it is true we have had a little more— rather than increasing the end price, has undoubtedly achieved a bigger result in production in the farming world and, therefore, benefit to the farming community. I do not think I should go beyond that in discussing this Supplementary Estimate.
In regard to the appropriation-in-aid of £250,000, which is due to the fact that the £250,000 Supplementary Estimate of last summer has not been repaid, the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry whether the general policy of the Government has embarrassed the production of the firm concerned is not well founded. It is not necessary for me to go into the figures of the exact amount involved in order to keep them in production, but it is sufficient to say that my right hon. Friend felt that the production and husbandry of the farms in that part of the world were to some extent dependent on this unit continuing, and he therefore considered it desirable to help them out in their attempts to keep in production.
The suggestion that the subsidy on feedingstuffs last year could have embarrassed them to the extent of the difficulties in which they found themselves does not hold water. After all, the total production of this factory is something of the order of from 5,000 to 10,000 tons out of a total national production of about 200,000 tons. As other grass driers up and down the country are continuing in production, it seems to me that there is some reflection on the actual organisation of this company and on the way they have been running their affairs.

Mr. G. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman looks further into it, I think he will find that nearly all commercial grass driers, and a good many large-scale farmer grass driers, are now running on precisely the same lines.

Mr. Nugent: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but I do agree that it would not be in the general interest or in the interest of the Committee to pursue this matter very far. I certainly cannot accept the suggestion that any action of the Government or any facet of the Government's policy has in any way embarrassed this company. In fact, the position is quite the reverse, and they have been most generously treated.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,632,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for certain food production services of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

CLASS VI

VOTE 21. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR SCOTLAND (FOOD PRODUCTION SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £795,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for certain food production services of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND

9.11 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): As time is getting short, and as some hon. Members may wish to put questions, I propose to make a brief explanation of the Supplementary Estimate required for the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.
In Item E, the additional amount of £130,000 arises as a result of the extension of the Marginal Agricultural Production Scheme to include assistance for winter keep for hill cows following the recommendation of the Hill Lands Commission which was accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and which received Treasury approval.
The rate of assistance is one not exceeding £3 per head of eligible stock. The estimated cost in 1952–53 was £300,000, but this figure is partly offset by the expected savings on Subhead E amounting to £170,000, thus involving an excess of £130,000, the amount now asked for in this Supplementary Estimate. The number of eligible animals is estimated at 100,000, and payment to date has been made in respect of 90,000 of them.
In Item I, Grants in Respect of the Rearing of Calves, the additional amount of £340,000 asked for is required to cover the estimated cost of the first year of the scheme approved under the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act, 1952. The estimated cost in the year 1952–53 is £420,000, but against this there are to be set savings on the provisions for earlier schemes amounting to £80,000, thus reducing the amount now required to £340,000.
I do not think I need go into the calf subsidy—it has been fairly well debated

in this House—but it might be of interest just to quote a figure or two to show how it is progressing in Scotland. I am very glad to say that the scheme in Scotland is going well and smoothly, so far as we can estimate from the reports coming into us. To date, about 90,000 calves— 49,000 steers and 41,000 heifers—have been marked for subsidy and subsidy will be paid on the majority of them during this financial year. The rejections amount to 7,700, 2,200 steers and 5,500 heifers. The bulk of them are of the dairy type and that is the principal reason why they have been rejected.
Grant O for the ploughing up of grassland is largely a question of underestimating. The additional sum of £465,000 requested is required to meet the cost of the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) Schemes approved by Parliament in July and October, 1952, under the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act. A Supplementary Estimate was presented in July, 1952, for £1 million. That was based upon an estimated acreage to qualify of 200,000 acres at £5 an acre. In fact, we find that the actual acreage is 288,000.
I think that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture mentioned a figure of 280,000 and for the record I should like to say that it is actually 288,000. That involves an additional payment of £440,000 over the estimated amount. That still leaves a balance of £25,000 to complete the figure of £465,000 in the Estimate. That £25,000 is accounted for by first payments due under the new scheme for the current year.
There is one point of interest with regard to the £10 per acre ploughing up scheme, which we in Scotland did not think would have a very great effect because of the nature of the country and for other reasons. I am glad to say that we are having a very substantial result and up to date proposals for ploughing 7,500 acres have been approved. With that explanation I hope that hon. Members will be disposed to let us have this Estimate.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Owing to the lateness of the hour and the fact that some hon. Members wish to say a few words on another Supplementary


Estimate, I propose not to ask a number of questions which I proposed to ask the Under-Secretary. I do not quarrel with the first two items which are before the Committee, but I should like to make it clear that I am not at all happy about the requirements for the ploughing-up subsidies.
It is my view that many of the additional acreage of tillage that we are obtaining are worthless. They are being very badly managed and they have been very badly prepared for the production of crops. If one looks at the total increase in tillage acreage against the total cost of the scheme, one finds that we pay a heavy price per acre for all the additional acres which we have. However, I do not propose to pursue that matter tonight.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I do not want to go into the question whether ploughing-up grants are being paid in respect of work that might be done any way. Nor do I deny the need to grow more feedingstuffs at home. But I wonder whether in all parts of this country, and more particularly in the far North, the best way of spending this money is to encourage the ploughing up of land for growing grain. It is a difficult climate for grain production. The point that I want to make is whether we are placing sufficient emphasis on improving grass, hay and other fodder.
I do not know how much grass is now artificially dried in the far North, nor how much silage is prepared, but it is very important that in the North and West of Scotland grass should be improved and the method of feeding it improved. I do not think that we have in Scotland a research station for dealing with this matter and I wonder whether the Scottish Office have undertaken any experiments in this direction.

9.19 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: It is most illuminating to hear that the calf subsidy has been so successful in Scotland in encouraging a large increase in calf rearing. I should like to ask what is the minimum and maximum age in respect of which a subsidy is payable for steer calves.

9.20 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: There is only one point which I should like to have made clear. I find that under Subhead E a subsidy is given to Scottish farmers and is not given at all to English or Welsh farmers. It seems strange to find that although Scotland is getting at least its share of this extra money as compared with England, at the present time the Scottish agricultural workers are being paid less than the English agricultural workers.
Would it not be possible for the Undersecretary tonight to appeal to the Scottish farmers to treat the Scottish agricultural workers as well as the English agricultural workers are treated?

The Chairman: He cannot do that. If he does so, he will be out of order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £795,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for certain food production services of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS

VOTE 3. POST OFFICE

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,869,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including telegraphs and telephones, and certain grants in aid.

Class VII

VOTE 9. STATIONERY AND PRINTING

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £825,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for stationery, printing, paper, binding and printed books for the public service; for the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including reports of parliamentary debates.

STATIONERY AND PRINTING

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I am glad that we have the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this important subject. I am only sorry that there are not more hon. Members opposite to take an interest in the expenditure on stationery and printing. For their benefit, and in case they do not know it already, this Supplementary Estimate comes on top of an original Estimate, which is already at a record level. The total amount which is now being spent this year on stationery and printing is close on £16 million, which is about £6 million more than was spent in 1949–50.
The Estimate for £825,000 is made up of a number of different items, but I observe that among them is a sum of £470,000 for printing, and of this £470,000 no less than £390,000 is for "Departmental forms and circulars, pamphlets, instruction books, etc." We shall want to know how on earth it comes about that the Financial Secretary, who when he was on this side of the House was extremely critical of forms of any kind, could allow such a thing to happen.
Despatch boxes, pouches, wallets and miscellaneous, under Item G, amount to no less than £30,000. I should have thought that we could have got a great many despatch boxes, pouches and wallets for £30,000. What is the explanation of this? Is it something to do with the Overlord system that so many pouches have to go backwards and forwards?
I want to give the Financial Secretary plenty of time to reply. I also want to know how it comes about that there are such big deficiencies in the appropriations-in-aid. We are £140,000 down on sales of waste paper. Does that mean that more

records are being kept and fewer things are being torn up? Then there are supplies to hospital authorities. How is it that the hospital authorities are paid £310,000 less this year?
The only bright spot in the whole gloomy picture is that there is an expected surplus on sales of Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary publications. Once again, the House of Commons comes to the rescue, but I am afraid only to the tune of £75,000 against this very substantial Supplementary Estimate of £825,000. I very much hope that the Financial Secretary will be able, even in five minutes, to give a full and adequate account of the stewardship which he appears to have been neglecting during the past year.

9.24 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking on the task of explaining the Supplementary Estimate. At one time he had a good deal of practice in explaining Supplementary Estimates. I can answer straight away the first substantial question he asked, about the fall in appropriations-in-aid in respect of waste paper. The very simple answer to that is that the price of new paper has fallen, and, therefore, inevitably waste paper fell in price. The difference is in substance due not to a decrease in quantity, but a decrease in price. Indeed, it is a reflection of a very advantageous and proper state of affairs, that is, that paper, like so many other things in these days, is falling in price.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked, perhaps with his tongue less in his cheek, for details of the three main items of additional expenditure—printing, binding, and general office supplies and machinery repairs. In the first place, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, accurate estimating in the case of a service Department like the Stationery Office is far more difficult than in the case of an ordinary Department, which has only its own work to plan. Accurately to estimate and forecast the expenditure of a Department such as this, whose work is directly affected by the amount of work required to be done for other Departments, involves estimating the work of some 50 or 60 different Departments and,


therefore, the chance of not calculating it with complete accuracy is 60 times the greater.
I can, I think, in the three minutes that remain, indicate in what direction, because I think the Committee would like to know, are the main increases. Taking the first one—printing—which is, of course, much the largest, as the Committee will have appreciated, a very large part of the increase is in respect of the defence Departments. It reflects quite directly the increased activities on defence during the financial year which is now near closing. The largest single item of £95,000 is in respect of the Post Office, which is a trading Department and, being a trading Department, its increased expenditure in this direction will, of course, reflect the greater trading activity which, although it does not help this Vote, is, from the broad point of view of the national finances, not unsatisfactory.
The second largest item of £70,000, in respect of work for the Board of Trade, is required to keep up the heavy rise of work, which the right hon. Gentleman may remember, on the printing of Patent Office specifications which is getting very much into arrears, and, from every point of view, it is desirable to catch up with that work.
Much the same picture is reflected under Subhead G—binding. £85,000 out of the £110,000 involved there is in respect of the Departments working on Defence. By far the greater part again reflects defence work. As hon. Members are aware, in these days, apparently, defence work requires a great deal of paper.

Mr. Gaitskell: What about the pouches and wallets—that is not defence, is it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is very well aware that pouches and wallets are freely used by the defence Departments for the carrying of confidential papers, and so on. [HON.

MEMBERS: "What else?"] It is desirable that they should not lose them— [HON. MEMBERS: "The pouches or the papers?"] Neither the papers nor, of course, the pouches. At any rate, the item in respect of general office supplies and machinery repairs, etc. reflects very much the same position, namely, that there is mainly an increase on the side of the defence Departments.
Obviously, all Supplementary Estimates are matters which we would rather not have. When one takes the scale of modern Government and looks at the fact that this is an Estimate which reflects and is directly acted upon by the expenditure of virtually every Department of State, I do not think that this comparatively small sum is a matter which indicates anything particularly discreditable. The right hon. Gentleman has experience, no doubt

It being half-past Nine o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote then under consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £825,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for stationery, printing, paper, binding and printed books for the public service; for the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including reports of parliamentary debates.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions:

"That the total amounts outstanding in such Estimates for the Navy, Army and Air Services for the coming financial year as have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration on an allotted day, and the total amounts of the outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days, and of all outstanding Excess Votes, be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Statements of Excess."

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

That a sum, not exceeding £146,290,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:

£


1.
Pay, &amp;c, of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
49,860,000


2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
18,300,000


6.
Scientific Services
14,671,000


9.
Naval Armaments
28,812,000


10.
Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
18,040,000


13.
Non-Effective Services
16,607,000


15.
Additional Married Quarters
100




£146,290,100

Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1953–54

That a sum, not exceeding £229,960,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz.:

£


1.
Pay, &amp;c, of the Army
126,290,000


2.
Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 55,000, other ranks, for the Regular Reserve and 145,000, all ranks, for the Army Emergency Reserve), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 312,900. all ranks), Home Guard (to a number not exceeding 60,000, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force
18,290,000


5.
Movements
35,070,000


8.
Works, Buildings and Lands
32,400,000


10.
Non-Effective Services
17,910,000


11.
Additional Married Quarters
100




£229,960,100

Question put, and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1953–54

That a sum, not exceding £359,320,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz.:

£


1.
Pay, &amp;c, of the Air Force
85,570,000


2.
Reserve and Auxiliary Services (to a number not exceeding 155,000, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 11,000, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force)
1,690,000


7.
Aircraft and Stores
195,250,000


8.
Works and Lands
70,000,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
6,810,000




£359,320,000

Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1952–53

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £46,333,165, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:

CIVIL ESTIMATES


CLASS 1





£


25B.
Coronation of Her Majesty
…
232,000

CLASS II


6.
Commonwealth Services
…
197,650


7.
Overseas Settlement
…
102,090


9.
Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
…
10

CLASS III


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
…
236,500


7.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
…
12,000


8.
County Courts
…
10


15.
Prisons, Scotland
…
61,800


18.
Scottish Land Court
…
200

CLASS IV


1.
Ministry of Education
…
8,598,000


3.
British Museum (Natural History)
…
11,500


6.
National Gallery
…
1,900


9.
Wallace Collection
…
1,300


14.
Public Education, Scotland
…
1,203,724


16.
National Library, Scotland
…
891

CLASS V





£


1.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government
…
443,650


2.
Housing, England and Wales
…
2,490,000


10.
National Assistance Board (Revised Sum)
…
19,700,000


14.
National Health Service, Scotland
…
1,155,000


15.
Housing, Scotland
…
314,000

CLASS VI


1.
Board of Trade
…
10


11.
Surveys of Great Britain, etc.
…
16,000


12.
Forestry Commission
…
250,000


19.
State Management Districts, England and Wales
…
10


22.
Fisheries, Scotland
…
63,130


23.
Herring Industry
…
86,500

CLASS VII


2.
Houses of Parliament Buildings
…
52,000


3.
Public Buildings, Great Britain
…
953,000


4.
Public Buildings Overseas
…
139,500


5.
Royal Palaces
…
29,000


6.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
…
10,000


7.
Miscellaneous Works Services
…
398,990


8.
Rates on Government Property
…
144,400

CLASS VIII


1.
Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
…
25,400


2.
Ministry of Pensions
…
8,900,000


3.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc
…
53,000


4.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
…
450,000





£46,333,165

Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1952–53

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the Grants for Navy Services for the year.

SCHEDULE




Sums not exceeding




Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid




£
£


Vote




1.
Pay, &amp;c, of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
1,500,000
100,000


2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
2,650,000
*-2,400,000


3.
Medical Establishments and Services
20,000
—


4.
Civilians Employed on Fleet Services
150,000
—


6.
Scientific Services
Cr 1,150,000
50,000


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
Cr 100,000
—


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &amp;c.—





Section I— Personnel
1,000,000
175,000



Section II— Matériel
2,700,000
3,500,000



Section III— Contract Work
Cr 1,850,000
1,500,000


9.
Naval Armaments
Cr 3,800,000
*-500,000


10.
Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
1,660,000
*-160,000


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
Cr 335,000
300,000


13.
Non-effective Services
550,000
30,000


14.
Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair
5,000
5,000


15.
Additional Married Quarters
—
*-l, 100,000



Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1952–53
£3,000,000
£1,500,000


* Deficit

Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL (EXCESSES), 1951–52


That a sum, not exceeding £22,435 10s. 2d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1952.


SCHEDULE


Class and Vote
Excess of Expenditure over Estimate
Appropriations in Aid
Excess Votes


Class III
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


8.
County Courts
…
17,363
9
6
17,353
9
6
10
0
0


Class VI











8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
…
129,976
13
10
122,294
14
8
7,681
19
2


Class VII











4.
Public Buildings Overseas
…
24,964
5
10
10,262
8
2
14,701
17
8


11.
Peterhead Harbour
…
21
13
4
—
21
13
4


Class IX











1.
Ministry of Supply
…
1,102,196
2
1
1,102,186
2
1
10
0
0


17.
Tin
…
1,609,905
9
1
1,609,895
9
1
10
0
0





Total Civil (Excesses)
£22,435
10
2


Question put, and agreed to.

Navy (Excess),1951–52


That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for Navy Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1952.


SCHEDULE




DEFICITS
SURPLUSES


Navy Services, 1951–52 Votes
Excesses of actual over Estimated gross Expenditure
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts




£ 
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1.
Pay, &amp;c. of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
994,375
17
4
—
—
17,873
14
6


2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
—
—
24,005
11
4
455,346
14
5


3.
Medical Establishments and Services
—
42,580
17
6
483,443
15
10
—


4.
Civilians employed on Fleet Services
—
—
14,096
13
0
5,768
4
5


5.
Educational Services
—
—
62,501
3
7
5,037
13
2


6.
Scientific Services
—
-
577,140
1
9
92,985
9
5


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
—
—
103,165
17
3
1,386
12
1


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &amp;c.—















Section I.-Personnel
—
—
177,483
12
6
101,981
6
7



Section II.-Matériel
1,929,349
5
8
—
—
1,202,658
4
8



Section III.-Contract Work
152,621
14
2
—
—
757,156
13
11


9.
Naval Armaments
—
—
675,207
8
11
1,160,162
3
7


10.
Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad
633,102
10
1
—
—
12,585
15
8


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
329,104
16
9
—
—
613,599
9
3


12.
Admiralty Office
—
—
1,952
0
3
9,771 
4
8


13.
Non-effective Services
—
—
104,345
17
9
2,429
1
3


14.
Merchant Shipbuilding and Repair Services
—
1,081
6
8
6,009
19
2
—


15.
Additional Married Quarters
—
—
64,747
13
2
—



Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned
19,544
7
9
—
—
—




4,058,098
11
9
43,662 
4
2
2,294,099
14
6
4,438,742
7
7



Excess Vote
—
—
10
0
0
—




4,058,098
11
9
43,662
4
2
2,294,109
14
6
4,438,742
7
7




£4,101,760
15s. 
11d.
£6,732,852
2s. 
1d. 




Net Surplus £2,631,091 6s. 2d. 


Question put, and agreed to.

Army (Excess), 1951–52


That a sum, not exceeding £2,731,080 7s. 8d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for Army Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1952.


SCHEDULE




DEFICITS
SURPLUSES


Army Services, 1951–52 Votes
Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1.
Pay, &amp;c, of the Army
1,180,686
19
0
—


—


405,781
5
9


2.
Reserve Forces, Territorial Army, Home Guard and Cadet Forces
35,205
19
7
—


—


45,675
7
11


3.
War Office
—


—


2,221
17
0
1,404
18
7


4.
Civilians
501,746
2
2
—


—


20,569
14
0


5.
Movements
732,874
18
4
—


—


12,286
1
8


6.
Supplies, &amp;c
2,081,434
5
5
—


—


456,084
8
4


7.
Stores
—


—


3,183,718
12
5
736,422
18
0


8.
Works, Buildings and Lands
3,019,546
4
4
—


—


38,723
8
0


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
246,547
11
5
298,336
0
11
—


—




10.
Non-effective Services
—


—


701,705
4
4
69,856
5
8


11.
Additional Married Quarters.
223,070
13
7
—


—


—





Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned
86,081
14
7
—


—


—






8,107,194
8
5
298,336
0
11
3,887,645
13
9
1,786,804
7
11



Excess Vote
—


—


2,731,080
7
8
—






8,107,194
8
5
298,336
0
11
6,618,726
1
5
1,786,804
7
11




£8,405,530 9s. 4d.
£8,405,530 9s. 4d.


Question put, and agreed to.

AIR (EXCESS), 1951–52


That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to make good an excess on the grants for Air Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1952.


SCHEDULE




DEFICITS
SURPLUSES


Air Services, 1951–52 Votes
Excesses of actual over Estimated gross Expenditure
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts




£ 
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, &amp;c., of the Air Force 
—
 90,987
2
6
758,994
2
4
—


2.
Reserve and Auxiliary Services.
33,234
18
8
—
—
394
15
11


3.
Air Ministry
—
14,794
8
5
59,510
7
10
—


4.
Civilians at Outstations
—
124,115
0
6
183,628
4
10
—


5.
Movements
—
—
138,040
1
5
139,838
17
10


6.
Supplies
—
—
979,682
3
6
328,084
16
4


7.
Aircraft and Stores
—
—
478,112
16
1
200,358
11
3


8.
Works and Lands
1,918,435
13
9
—
—
546,006
12
0


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
116,750
0
9
105,223
19
6


10.
Non-effective Services 
—
—
49,777
15
2
25,298
1
5


11.
Additional Married Quarters.
240,315
6
7
—
—
—



Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned.
18,345
0
11
—
—
—




2,210,330
19
11
229,896
11
5
2,764,495
11
11
1,345,205
14
3



Excess Vote
—
—
10
0
0
—




2,210,330
19
11
229,896
11
5
2,764,505
11
11
1,345,205
14
3




£2,440,227
11s.
4d.
£4,109,711
6s.
2d.




Net Surplus £1,669,483 14s. l0d.

Question put, and agreed to.

To report Resolutions, and ask leave to sit again.—[Sir H. Butcher.]

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,

That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ended on 31st March, 1952, the sum of £2,753,535 17s. lOd. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved,

That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, the sum of £87,044,535 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolved,

That towards making good the Simply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, the sum of £1,634,246,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. —[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

To report resolutions and ask leave to sit again. —[Sir H. Butcher.]

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

NORTH-WESTERN GAS BOARD (TARIFFS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Kaberry.]

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Almost every month now in the North-West we get a new gas tariff. I am not sure whether the one I have in my hand is the latest although it is dated January, 1953. It is a grave matter, and since this is the only chance we have of discussing the tariffs and charges of the nationalised industries I am delighted that we have a little more time than usual in which to do so tonight.
There are two points I wish to raise, about one of which I am bound to say that I do not expect to get very much satisfaction, although it is a very serious matter. I refer to the actual increases in the charges for gas. But the second point, upon which I hope to get some answer, is the inequitable way in which these increases have been levied, particularly on small industrial consumers.
The tariff I have referred to covers the districts of Accrington, Blackburn, Clitheroe, Darwen, Oswaldtwistle and Withnell, all of them hard working and thrifty places, particularly Darwen and Withnell. I have been written to by a series of small business men, particularly bakers and fried fish merchants and people of that sort, all of whom say they are no longer going to use gas, and that they will, if their resources permit, change to the consumption of oil. I am sure it would be a bad thing if these districts as a whole became more and more dependent upon an imported product and less dependent upon a product which we produce indigenously.
To give some idea of the great increase that has taken place, I would mention that in 1950, when the Gas Board took over, the charge per therm was 9d. That was for the first 500 therms per quarter, and if more than 500 therms were taken the charge went down to 8½d., so that there was a little rebate for quantity. There was no meter rent and there was a small discount for cash.
In January, 1953, what do we find? For the first 65 therms the charge is double what it was in 1950. It is 18d. per therm. There are large gradations of price according to the amount taken. The next amount is 1,200 therms, for which the price is 16d. per therm, then 2,000 therms at 14¾d., and so on until, for a consumption per quarter of over 90,000 therms, the price is 9d. or thereabouts. In other words, for the very large consumer there has been practically no alteration at all since 1950, whereas for the small consumers the charge per therm has in many cases doubled
Rebates for quantity are, in small measure, familiar features of industrial life, and can be justified. To deliver a load of coal in a wagon may be cheaper because of the quantity and because overheads are less, although not very much less. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and through him the Gas Board, to say that a reduction from 1s. 6d. to 9d.—a bracket as wide as that—can be accounted for by saving on delivery in quantity. If it cannot be so accounted for, it is a very sinister feature of the charges to the consumer.
The United States believe very strongly in equality of competition, and feel strongly, as we do on both sides of the House, against the cartelisation of the private sector of industry. It is a crime there, indeed it is a gross infringement of the anti-trust laws, for a supplier in a monopolistic position to grant heavy rebates for quantity that cannot be very strictly justified on the ground of economy in overheads by reason of supplying in quantity, because that would be giving undue preference to a large concern and is not fair competition. In this case—if this were the United States—the gas board would be in serious danger of prosecution.
I defy the board to justify these rebates on economic grounds. It looks as though the board realise that they have the small, moderate consumer in a very close grip. These small people—bakers, fish fryers, etc.—have not the capital resources to enable them to turn to alternative fuel. They have invested their capital in gas-burning equipment and they cannot convert as easily as can the large central bakery in the big city. I am told that these are known as "federal"


bakeries. These latter get a big relative advantage in the new tariff and that is a very bad development.
If baking is to be done in the cities and not in the small towns, that is bad socially. A heavy fall of snow in a mountainous area such as North-East Lancashire can cut off the small towns from the cities for as long as a week; even the outbreak of hostilities would break off communications. Then, if the small bakers in small towns have been driven out of business because they can no longer compete, we shall be in a very bad way.
It ought to be the duty of the House and of the Government, and also of the gas board, to see that small bakers and fish fryers have their position preserved. After all, flour costs the same for all concerns. If gas is to cost the small man twice as much it stands to reason that he will be driven out. His raw material and labour costs are the same as those of the big, federal bakeries. If he has to pay double for his gas, or even half as much again, he is bound to go under.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take this matter very seriously. The cost of this new schedule is heavy. Taking baking as an example, because it is probably the direct industrial activity that comes closest to the hearts and stomachs of the people, I am informed that oil-fired baking can produce a sack of bread for 1s. 8d. in a travelling oven. If these tariffs are put into effect, for the moderate-size oil-fired bakeries, assuming a consumption of 9,000 therms per quarter, gas will cost 7s. 2d., using draw-plate ovens. In other words, in a travelling oven bread can be produced for a fuel cost of 1s. 8d. by oil, whereas it will be 7s. 2d. by gas, using a draw-plate oven. I suggest that that is becoming a lamentable state of affairs.
That brings me to my second point, the savage gradation between the large consumer, who is getting his gas not much more expensively, if at all, than three years ago, and the moderate and small man, who is paying half or three-quarters as much again, or even double. That is bad enough, but it is much worse when one looks at the gas charges as a whole. The price for the poor domestic consumer who has to put 1s. in the slot is 19¼d. per therm whereas in 1950 it was

just over 9d. a therm, which is much more than double. Nowadays, of course, there are also charges for meters, and whereas formerly there were small discounts for cash payment of accounts, these have disappeared.
It is difficult for hon. Members of this House to probe into the costs of these boards. These are the only chances we have of doing so, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take the unique chance we have tonight, when we have quite a long time at our disposal, to tell us why these charges should have gone up so much in the last three years. It is not good enough to say that it is because coal charges have gone up so much. The increase is much more than can be accounted for on that score.
It is a remarkable state of affairs, but I believe the gas boards buy coal at 70s. a ton and sell coke, after they have extracted the gas, at 80s. a ton. Although the two tonnages are not comparable, coke being so much lighter than coal, it shows to what extent the costs of the gas board must be inflated if they can sell their by-products at more than their main raw material costs, and then in addition, they are selling their main product, gas, at these tremendous charges.
I hope I have made my two points. On the main point we cannot, of course, do anything but plunge about in the dark. On the subsidiary point, I suggest it strikes at an important principle, not merely in regard to gas but all services, fuel and transport and all other matters connected not merely with nationalised industries but with industry as a whole. The principle is that, if we are to preserve free and fair competition, we must do all we can to stop undue preferences being given to big concerns that have great bargaining and market power.
I end as I began. I believe that the gas board knows it has to get its money from somewhere. According to the statute it has to balance its accounts over the years, taking one year with another— whatever that may mean. It cannot, it feels it dare not, extract its money from the people who have buying power because it knows they have the capital resources to switch to alternative fuel. What it does, therefore, is to come down heavily on people who have few or insufficient capital resources because it knows that they cannot do anything but complain


through the voice of their Member, and not very often because he cannot put down Questions about it.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend the Minister to give a direction, not only to this Gas Board, but to all gas boards, under Section 7 of the Gas Act. This is not a matter of day-to-day management or anything of that sort, but is a matter of general principle, on which Section 7 of the Act permits the Minister to give directions.
It is a matter of general principle that gas boards should not discriminate between moderate industrial users and large industrial users, or between moderate domestic users and large domestic users, if any such still remain, except where that justification is rigidly and strictly justifiable on the ground of economy in the overheads of the gas board, in the reading of meters or in connection with accounts. I cannot believe that a discrepancy of as much as that between 9d. and 18d. per therm can possibly be so justified.
After all, the pipes already exist. If some great new installation was being fixed up, one could well understand that the large capital investment involved would have to be made to pay its way by the charging of a cheaper rate or something similar; but even so, I rather think it would be the other way round. The fixed installations in the area we are considering, however, are already there, and all that the board has to do is to send the gas along the pipes. I cannot believe that as far as the overhead expenses of the board are concerned it makes all that difference whether the gas is consumed by one great concern or by, say 20 concerns each one-twentieth the size of the large concern. If these differences of treatment are not justified they should be stopped.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: I only want to speak on two relatively small points, one of which follows a point made by the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) about the disclosure of costs and the relatively few opportunities that we get in the House to consider and debate the accounts and costings of nationalised industries.
I feel rather in sympathy with what the hon. Member has said, although I remember that a few weeks ago when certain

questions were raised about the price of petrol and other liquid fuels, there was a great deal of agitation in the Conservative Press to the effect that there should not be interference with the accounts and costings of the business of private enterprise. If the hon. Member is with me in agreeing that there is a case for more frequent opportunities to discuss the accounts and costings of nationalised industries, I hope he would agree with me that there was a similar case concerning such public amenities and services as those provided by the big oil cracking organisations.
I agree with the hon. Member that there is some cause for concern at the tendency, for instance, of the gas board to raise tariffs without due consideration to local factors, which brings me to my second point. Recently, we have had in Lichfield a lot. in my view, of justifiable public agitation about the new, greatly increased, tariffs which, contrary to public expectation, have not been based on the efficiency or take-up value of the local undertaking, but on some far lower price scale, taking into consideration very inefficient and other adjacent undertakings. This is slightly a digression from the point made by the hon. Member, but it is rather disappointing when a local authority, such as Lichfield, who have an extremely efficient undertaking are subjected to a greatly increased tariff which appears to be unjustified when their previous state of efficiency is taken into consideration.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Exactly the same applies to my constituency, in the borough of Darwen. Exactly the same happened; it was a very efficient undertaking, but all that efficiency has gone for nothing because of the inefficiency in other places.

Mr. Snow: It is somewhat of an embarrassment to have all this agreement and no doubt there is a catch in it. From a constituency point of view I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that there is local disquiet on this point.
On the other question raised by the hon. Member about the disclosure of accounts and costings I am completely in agreement, provided he accepts the principle that it should apply also to those virtually monopoly services provided by


the liquid fuel organisations which are at present—at present—under private enterprise.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Ian Horobin: I hope that the Minister will be under no illusions on the depth of feeling there is all over Lancashire on this point, which has been so usefully raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher Cooke). I do not want to say anything about the discriminatory tariffs to which my hon. Friend referred, although I am in agreement with him. The fundamental public feeling is on the ceaseless rise in costs over which apparently no one now has any control as a result of the practically irresponsible Socialist monopolies set up in what, after all, is one industry—the fuel industry.
I am going to embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) by agreeing with the point he made. A great many of us feel that this section of the industry, the gas industry, was in much better hands when it was either under statutory authorities limited as regards dividends by price so that they had every incentive to keep prices down or in the many extremely efficient local authority gas undertakings under strict control of the local ratepayers.

Mr. Snow: The hon. Member refers to me as his hon. Friend. I assume that that is a slip of the tongue. There were, of course, extremely efficient local undertakings such as that of the City of Lichfield, but he should not overstate the case. There were extremely inefficient undertakings from which we are now suffering.

Mr. Horobin: That might be true but, as so often happens, everyone has been levelled to the lowest instead of being raised to the highest. Wherever we touch this matter in this industry we find services have got worse.
Reference has been made to the facilities which have been withdrawn with regard to meters, and so on, and prices have gone up, but no one seems to have any control. It is appreciated that so long as the price of coal goes up— although this is not the time to go into that—the price of gas, electricity, transport and the cost of living will also go

up. There is grave disquiet over the conduct of these subsidiary branches of the fuel industry—coal and electricity— for the very reason that neither local control nor shareholders' control is operative any more and the Minister seems either unable or, for good or bad reasons, does not exercise direction or control.
I hope that this opportunity will not have been taken in vain, but that it will lead the Minister to furbish such powers as he has to see that every rise in the price of raw materials, in wages, and so on, is not passed on to the consumer but that a ceaseless effort is made to be as efficient as possible. It is quite certain that the prices of everything we buy is being put up by a spiral which rises never endingly, starting with coal and going up through gas, electricity, transport, and so forth.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some satisfaction and hope for the future in this matter, which has caused grave disquiet, and certainly in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend.

9.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): If I may make a reference to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) has been saying, I think it would be a pity if quite such sweeping statements as he has been making about the ineffectiveness of the boards were allowed to go from the House unchallenged; because it is easy to say that prices have gone up, that some discounts have been withdrawn and matters of that sort and that in every direction hardship has been created to the consumer, but that the consumer has had no advantages. I would remind him that with regard to the most recent increase in the price of coal—

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, with-out Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Kaberry.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I would remind my hon. Friend that with regard to the most recent increase of 10 per cent. in the price of coal quite a number of gas boards have themselves carried it, and are not putting up their prices. That is


one indication at least of increasing efficiency and of an increasing sense of responsibility that this spiral has to be stopped. When we throw out these broad generalisations in detriment of the boards we should also bear in mind the things which can be said to their credit.
I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) not only on having the felicity of opening this debate, but on his good fortune in having rather a longer period in which to do so than is normally the case. I am glad that he seized his opportunity. It is an excellent thing that we should have a chance to review these matters and discuss the questions he has raised. But when he, and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) and the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) pursued the question further and discussed the affairs of the boards, the rates of tariffs, and so on, I felt we were getting out of our depth, because that is a matter at present within the consideration of the Select Committee appointed by this House.
What we do tonight must be of a rather more limited nature. I would make it clear that under the powers which Parliament has granted to the gas boards, and imposed upon him, my right hon. Friend has no power to interfere with the tariffs which the boards adopt. We have to start on that basis. I think it would be of assistance to my hon. Friend were I to take him through the procedure.
I would refer to the Gas Act, 1948, where he will find that in Section 9 it is laid down that the gas consultative council for the area have to consider the variation of tariffs and the provision of new or improved services or facilities within the area. That is a matter for them to discuss with the board. Parliament, through the Minister, has appointed the gas consultative councils to be, for that purpose, the representatives of the consumers.
If the councils do not agree to the proposals to vary tariffs it is for them to take the matter up with the boards. If they succeed in pursuading the boards that the tariffs are bad and wrong the tariffs will be varied. If they do not succeed it is open to the councils, under the Act, to make their representations to the Minister. It is thus, on the representations of the consultative councils,

that the Minister has the power to intervene by consultation with the boards and with the Gas Council itself and ultimately, if necessary, by making a direction. But there is no power to make a special direction such as would be necessary to effect a change in a tariff unless, and until, it is upon the representation of one of the consultative councils.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: My hon. Friend mentioned Section 9 of the Act. Is it the received view in his Ministry and in the Government as a whole that the powers provided for the consultative council procedure inevitably mean that the overriding and general words of Section 7 do not apply on the question of tariffs, and that under Section 7 the Minister has no power to give general directions relating to tariffs even so far as non-discrimination between small and large consumers is concerned?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I was coming to Section 7 later, but I will deal with it now.
It would be exceedingly difficult to argue that the words of Section 7 would cover the point which my hon. Friend wants to make. The provision there is that:
The Minister may give to Area Boards generally or to a particular Area Board or to the Gas Council such directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by those Boards or that Board or the Gas Council of their functions as appear to the Minister to be requisite in the national interest, and they shall give effect to any such directions.
This has to be interpreted with the onus which is laid upon the boards not to make a profit and not to make a loss taking one year with another, as the phrase goes, which rather puzzled my hon. Friend. It is reasonably clear what is meant. By and large, they have to break even. Also, they have to run their business on commercial lines as an economic proposition. They are left as autonomous commercial people to run the business themselves.
It would be exceedingly difficult to argue that, under that general power of direction to guide boards in the way they should go in the national interest, it would be possible to intervene so as to direct the form which a tariff should take even to the extent that my hon. Friend desires. The fact remains that the tariffs


in the North-Western area were considered by the consultative council on behalf of the consumers. The consumers —representatives of bakers, and small commercial and industrial men—made representations to the consultative council.
Several deputations were received by the district committees of the consultative council. As a result of going into the matter with great care and at considerable length the consultative council came to the conclusion that there was no justification for them to interfere, and they approved the tariff which had been submitted by the board. It would be abundantly more difficult, if not impossible, even if there was no question as to the power being in the hands of my right hon. Friend, for him to intervene in a case of that sort and to override the decision already reached by the consultative council.
I pass to the question of preference. My hon. Friend made it clear that the Gas Act refers to the fact that a board shall not grant undue preference in the supply of its commodity. He sought to show that it was, in effect, granting undue preference for a board to charge a lower rate of tariff to the big consumer than to the small consumer. Again, perhaps it would be as well if I referred to the exact words of the Act to make the position clear and to avoid any misunderstanding.
The provision is contained in Section 53 (7), which states:
An Area Board, in fixing tariffs and making agreements under this section, shall not show undue preference to any person or class of persons and shall not exercise any undue discrimination against any person or class of persons.
All that the boards can do in that respect is to grant special terms in individual agreements where special circumstances exist. It is not a power which is frequently exercised, because it seldom happens that the circumstances do exist.
We had one. example in an electricity case recently which was debated in the House on another Adjournment, but in this particular instance regarding gas, it would only exist in the event of the size and continuity of the load being of such a character that it was of real advantage to the board to be able to have a base load of that sort which was so steady,

continuous and certain that it was a substantial contribution to the board's overhead expenses. Such cases do exist, but they are special circumstances and they are very few in number indeed.
What I want to make clear to the House is the problem which faced the boards when they took over on vesting day and had to absorb into their areas the number of undertakings which were there contained. In the case of the northwestern area, there were no fewer than 97 different undertakings, and those undertakings had no fewer than 130 different tariffs. It is not only the responsibility of the board under the Act to set about the standardisation of these tariffs, but, from the ordinary commercial standpoint, it would obviously be exceedingly difficult to run efficiently one undertaking which was seeking to operate such an immense number of tariffs in its own area.
Now that the hon. Member for Lich-field and Tamworth has resumed his seat, I would like to congratulate him on his perspicacity in pointing out that not all the undertakings were good undertakings, because one of the complications facing the North-Western Board when they took over was that, out of the 97 undertakings which had been absorbed, there were no fewer than 35 which had for a number of years been operating at a loss. Obviously, that threw an immediate and exceedingly difficult burden upon the board. They had had no opportunity of seeking to counteract the effect of the loss by making economies or by taking any of the other steps that have since been taken, and there was no alternative but to increase the price of gas to cover that loss, because it is contrary to the right procedure for a board to trade deliberately at a loss.
Then, they found an exceedingly serious state of affairs in certain parts of the undertakings in their area, and I think it is only fair to the board to quote from the conclusion of the 1951–52 Report, in which they say:
 There can, unfortunately, be no doubt that in many undertakings in the past, plant and equipment had been allowed to deteriorate seriously in order to keep down the price of gas. In others the shortage of materials and labour during the war and immediate post-war years had prevented the undertakers from maintaining their plant in the condition which they would have wished. In some cases, the


result was that not only was there a likelihood of failure to supply but plant was actually in a dangerous condition.
The Report goes on to illustrate the practical effect of that situation and the steps necessary to overcome it.
What it amounts to is that the Board had to expend very substantial sums of money in patching up and repairing plant which was inefficient, which should have been scrapped on economic grounds had it been possible to carry on the supply in any other way, and which should have been supplanted by new modernised economic plant. The result was that, on the one hand, the board had to expend money on which there would be no immediate economic return and from which they would not increase the production of gas from which to obtain increased revenue. On the other hand, it made it necessary for the board to incur forthwith substantial capital commitments of an investment character which cannot, in the natural course of events, show any short-term advantage to the board's consumers, but which are calculated to show a long-term advantage and a better supply under improved conditions to the consumers.
That is the general picture, which I have perhaps put forward at greater length than I otherwise might have done—

Mr. W. R. Williams: And very effectively.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I want my hon. Friend to appreciate that the board have their own difficulties.
I wish to come shortly to the question of increases in price. It has so happened that almost invariably as soon as the board have just got to a point in their standardisation of tariffs they have been met with some increased cost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) said, it is not always due to the increase in the price of coal. The wages of the people employed in the industry have risen substantially during the period, as have the costs of the materials which they use.
As they sought to standardise, so they were met with the increased prices which necessitated at the same time increases in the tariffs they were trying to standardise, but the upshot is that they have reduced the total number of tariffs from 130 to

seven. Regarding the seven, I would remind my hon. Friend of what the Consultative Council said about them. In their Annual Report they said:
The Council welcomed the decision of the Board to move towards standardisation of practices and noted that the policy of a"—
and this is what I would ask my hon. Friend particularly to bear in mind—
 maximum price of 19d. per therm to credit consumers necessitated a reduction in tariff charges in several districts.
We hear a great deal about the rises in tariff charges, but in the natural course of events and the way in which human nature works, we very seldom have people coming along to thank the boards for any reduction in tariff charges. It is on record in the Report of the Consultative Council that so far as the North-Western Board are concerned there has been a reduction of tariff charges in several districts.
I want now to say a word or two about the general effect of this differential in the tariffs themselves. I am not altogether at one with the figures quoted by my hon. Friend, though substantially I agree with him that there are differentials. I think that the figures which he quoted for 1950 were really the pre-1950 figures. The figures which I have for the tariff blocks for 1950 started with the 47½ therms at 14½d. per therm. I think that his figure was about 9d., so there is a substantial difference there. But I agree that in 1950, as against his figure of 14.5d., the last figure at over 2,280 therms per quarter was charged at only 9d.
Now I move to the current figures. The last figures which my hon. Friend gave I recognise as January, 1953, and not March, 1953, figures; but we do like to be up to date. Actually, it makes very little difference, because the March figures went up 1d. a therm on a flat rate on every tariff. But the first 65 therms under the revised tariff block are charged at 19.25d. When one gets to the biggest block of all—that of over 90,000 therms per quarter, which is a very substantial consumer indeed—at the top bracket, and it does not affect each therm for it rises in steps, there is a charge at 10½d. per therm for over 90,000 therms.
We can now try to see what happens to the bakers. I have made inquiries to try to find out the approximate—and it can only be the average—gas consumption of the small baker and the large


baker. Generally speaking, I think the small baker fits into the second step of the tariff where, after his first 65 therms, he goes into the bracket for the next 1,235 therms; that is he is taking between 1,300 and 1,500 therms per quarter. He is being charged at present 17d. on the bulk of his supply.
The large baker probably fits into the sixth step of the tariff, where he is getting up to about the 100,000 therms per quarter limit. At his top bracket he is having his supply, roughly speaking, at 1s. per therm, showing a differential of 5d. per therm between the two top brackets. That compares with the differential at the beginning of 1952 of 3d. between the top bracket of the small baker and the top bracket of the large baker. So my hon. Friend is quite justified in saying that the differentials have increased against the small baker and the small manufacturer of any other commodity who uses approximately the same amount of gas.
The question is: what can be done about it? I say, quite frankly, that my right hon. Friend can do nothing about it. As I have already said, the matter is one which has been taken into consideration by the consultative council. They have considered that it is a fair and right tariff and a proper tariff in the interests of consumers, both from the short-term and the long-term point of view; and we have to realise that there is a long-term point of view in this matter.
If for one reason or another the price goes up to the big consumer to the extent that he takes to oil or electricity or some other form of fuel and power and the gas board in consequence loses the base load and the contribution which that makes towards the overhead expenses, then the gas to the small consumer goes up in price very much more; because it would have to be the small consumer who would have to meet the overhead expenses previously met by the large consumer.
I wonder, also, whether it is only the question of gas which is affecting these small industrialists at the present time. There are many other elements in it. My hon. Friend said that the cost of labour was the same, but I am not sure whether or not he is right. In the big, mechanised bakeries there is a different

class of labour, and it may be that on the average turnover the labour charges in a big bakery represent a substantially smaller proportion of the turnover than the labour charges in a small bakery.
I am not a specialist in these matters and I do not claim to be able to speak with any certainty. I throw that out as an argument which occurs to me during the debate, as a possibility that it may not only be gas which is the cause of the difficulties in which the smaller bakers are finding themselves at present.
If the bigger consumer pays less, the smaller consumer might be prejudiced, but if the bigger consumer is asked to pay more and has to go out of business then the smaller consumer might find that his costs would go up even more. It is a question of it being the duty of the board to balance the economic cost of the article against the commercial practice of the business. As the Ridley Report has laid down, and as the Government have accepted, it should be the endeavour of the boards to ensure that the price to the consumer of the commodity which is produced should be related to the cost of production.
In addition, we have also to take into account the commercial practice of the industry. There are other suppliers of power, such as oil, which are not nationalised, are open to free competition, and are not bound by any statutory rules and provisions as to the way in which they have to operate their tariffs. If we were to seek to tie up the nationalised boards, they might be unable to meet the free competition of such interests, so that it would be impossible for them to carry on their major business and they would lose the major consumers to their competitors.
Therefore, an element of commercial practice has to be taken into account, and that may have had some influence in the decision which was taken by the consultative council when they came to the conclusion that it was not in the interests of the consumer for them to press the board further on this matter and that they were satisfied with the decision of the board.
While my right hon. Friend has not power, under the Act, to intervene in this matter, there is nothing to prevent both of my hon. Friends, if they think fit,


putting this matter again to the consultative council. I say without any hesitation that I think that have put forward a fair and powerful case to the House this evening. If they put their case again to the consultative council upon the lines they have argued tonight, they might be able to persuade the council, who are the people who have the power to make representations.
If so, my right hon. Friend would have something on which he could go, but until that is the situation there is nothing

further I can do except to express my regret that I have been unable to meet my hon. Friend and to thank him, as I do sincerely, for having given us the opportunity this evening of discussing this matter fully in the House tonight.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.